science vs religion

[troy]

[distracted]

honestly I don't get it Troy... You are like an atheist zealot!

What is your problem with people having a faith? In your world view (as mine) they are probably deluded but isn't that their prerogative? It's their existence after all isn't it? if someone is constantly pushing their belief on you, fine to argue back but no one is challenging you, you have a mainstream attitude to existence I would guess given that I only know a couple of people of my generation who are actively religious, but I don't know anyone that that is actively pushing atheist philosophy unless they are trying to sell a book or column inches. I, like many, decided many years ago that I could see no evidence that there was any deities but I came to that decision myself. If I had instead suspended disbelief and put my faith in a religion to explain my existence and future then who's business apart from mine would that have been anyway... not having a go btw but I am honestly confused about your motive for posts like the one above especially as she comes across worse than the others, the others aren't mocking each others beliefs, she aggressively dismisses other people rights to free thought and free belief by inferring they are all idiots, bloody rude bitch if you ask me

[Guest Thicky]

Each of these groups would impose their own particular religious laws upon our society whether we held their beliefs or not. It is right to challenge those who want to assert that they have a right to dictate to others based on a belief in a set of old writings.

Religion is a world away from spirituality. In my experience, spirituality is a living, ever present phenomena and takes no account of labels people give themselves to elevate their sense of self and make themselves feel safe.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Thicky

[distracted]

Each of these groups would impose their own particular religious laws upon our society whether we held their beliefs or not. It is right to challenge those who want to assert that they have a right to dictate to others based on a belief in a set of old writings.

Religion is a world away from spirituality. In my experience, spirituality is a living, ever present phenomena and takes no account of labels people give themselves to elevate their sense of self and make themselves feel safe.

I quite agree that it is right to repel attempts to assert religious belief on others but that is my point, there is little difference between pushing belief at other people and pushing a lack of believe... both are personal philosophies and both should be kept to the individual unless asked by the curious in my book... religious belief is taught but no teaching is required to not believe... Ridiculing religion is intolerance of other peoples right to believe whatever the hell they like.

[Guest bazzad9]

For me personally I only respond to religious claims ,I may go on a bit but generally its for the benefit of other readers rather than the person I'm responding to .

You will never change someones mind in fact there have been studys that show the more evidence you present the stronger there original beleif

As for Troy's video I can see why she said what she said ,the religious view generally gets more airtime on that show,I'm guessing a few had a dig at her at some point (I'm sure I watched that episode )

But I do agree that calling people idiots doesn't help ,methodical pulling apart of there claims bit by bit in a civil manner works much better

For me I find it amazing that people can think that way but I'm sure that some people find it amazing the way I think some times ,

I will happily dabate religion if it comes up on the forum but untill it does its not an issue (although I do read a fair bit on it I don't discuss it unless someone makes a claim

[troy]

I prefer the term antitheist. I think its only right to mock people for their deluded beliefs. Would you mock someone if they believe in fairies in the bottom of the garden or would you tell them to seek medical help ? Mainstream religion should not be immune to criticism of any sort especially when its wholly unfounded claims have no basis in truth by anyones yardstick.

Beliefs can be very dangerous, they are the generator of behaviour. It is beliefs that cause people to rape murder and steal. It was a certain set of beliefs that cause Breivik to kill 76 innocent people. As we see on an almost daily basis people are killed in Islamic sectarian violence because of a small schism in their belief system. Religion is constantly proselytyzing so I have no qualms about criticising their deluded beliefs, you yourself agree that they are deluded.

The Abrahamic religions are certainly not personal philosophies they are backed up by powerful and rich organisations. My philosophy is backed up by research and belief in rational thinking and I don't have a massive organisation behind me so who is the underdog in this instance ?

Religion should not be tolerated or respected , It has no place in a free thinking moral and fair world. Religion has no respects for human rights. Homosexuals are murdered or worse, people left to die of AIDS . Deluded individuals are encouraged to blow themselves up and take as many others as possible with them because they think they are going to heaven, they are idiots. Doesn't that make you angry ? People do change their beliefs by the way , it is a well established fact. I'm not willing to let the religious get their own way without a fight, religion is a dangerous virus that needs to be eradicated.

Americans change religious affiliation early and often. In total, about half of American adults have changed religious affiliation at least once during their lives. Most people who change their religion leave their childhood faith before age 24, and many of those who change religion do so more than once. These are among the key findings of a new survey conducted by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life. The survey documents the fluidity of religious affiliation in the U.S. and describes in detail the patterns and reasons for change.

The reasons people give for changing their religion - or leaving religion altogether - differ widely depending on the origin and destination of the convert. The group that has grown the most in recent years due to religious change is the unaffiliated population. Two-thirds of former Catholics who have become unaffiliated and half of former Protestants who have become unaffiliated say they left their childhood faith because they stopped believing in its teachings, and roughly four-in-ten say they became unaffiliated because they do not believe in God or the teachings of most religions.1 Additionally, many people who left a religion to become unaffiliated say they did so in part because they think of religious people as hypocritical or judgmental, because religious organizations focus too much on rules or because religious leaders are too focused on power and money. Far fewer say they became unaffiliated because they believe that modern science proves that religion is just superstition.

http://www.pewforum.org/Faith-in-Flux.aspx

eta I find it ironic that people use terms like zealot, dogmatic and evangelical to describe atheists when they are all properly religious terms. Zealous means on behalf of god. I don't need to describe myself in terms of what I have no belief in anyway, the term atheist already is giving something to the religious as it invokes god.

Edited January 13, 2012 by troy

[willowisp]

Troy you're missing some of the points being raised here...there is a difference between faith and religion. Faith, or spirituality, is believing something in your heart, you feel it, and you found it on your own. You follow that faith privately, you don't go on about it. Religion, however, is just doing something because some bloke told you to.

What's wrong with personal faith?

[distracted]

OK we will have to agree to disagree yet again as I said I wasn't having a go, just puzzled

eta I find it ironic that people use terms like zealot, dogmatic and evangelical to describe atheists when they are all properly religious terms. Zealous means on behalf of god. I

I said that you are like an atheist zealot! Not an atheist zealot as that would be nonsense, I'd have used inverted commas but I dislike the habit

Anyways I'll steer away from your faith bashing, all the best for the New Year

[ratdog]

Troy, have you read The Age Of Reason by Thomas Paine? he blasts the church and the bible and various religions but he insists it the freedom of the individual to have the beliefs they want to hold in their minds

E2a, It`s a bloody amazing read so far

Edited January 13, 2012 by ratdog

[troy]

Thanks Ratdog, I know Hitchens was very keen on it, ill put it on my ever growing list. Cheers Distracted , happy new year to you too. Its ok for people to have beliefs in their minds , the problem is they have an uncanny ability to stray out of there into their behaviour ...

Thanks willow , that a good point. Faith is fine if people keep it themselves , I agree.

Edited January 13, 2012 by troy

[Guest bazzad9]

Troy to a degree id agree with you

if religion was invented today i doubt many would beleive but the fact is most people have grown up with it to some degree.its a cultural thing as well .

If its what you have been taught most of your formative years its hard to shake off.

Luckily i was born an athiest and stayed that way had i had ultra religious parents ..who knows

[roundsquare]

something about cats and pigeons....

[CatBus]

These sort of topics always seem to get me wound up. Science is not simply accepting theory as fact! The scientific process works like this: somebody observes or thinks something, they come up with a theory to explain that thing. This theory is not presented as a certainty, it is presented as a theory. That theory is followed by experimental designs which aim to collect evidence to conclusively prove or disprove that theory. If the theory is proved then it is right, if it is disproved then it's tossed out. If the results are inconclusive it remains a theory.

The scientific method of investigation is rigorous and unforgiving. It cheapens scientific discovery to make these baseless claims about them "inventing" evidence. We are the society we are today because of inquisitive people, show some gratitude and respect!

[BudFan]

Hi Budfan,

Catholics do not dislike or seek to harm gay people.

Maybe not all Catholics but I think as an institution it is Homophobic.

Hiya Troy,

If a Catholic expresses dislike of gay people, or seeks to harm them in any way, then they are acting in direct contravention of the religion they claim to adhere to. That is deeply wrong and reflects badly on the person as an individual, not the faith as a whole.

It is explicitly enshrined in the Catholic catechism ("rule book", if you will, ), that gay people are of the exact same dignity and worth as any other person and are deserving of no less respect.

Basically, all people are human beings are deserve to be treated as such. There are many gay Catholics, including many clergymen. The Catholic Church is, in the UK, the only religious group which offers pastoral services specifically for LGBT people (many of whom regularly drive trips of hundreds of miles to attend these religious services in London).

What do you understand by the term "homophobic"?

A google define search offers several varying terms, its something of a "chuckabout" phrase.

However, the first definition offered is:

An extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

In no way could the Catholic position be construed as the above. As said, the Catechism recognises that gay people are human beings and of the same dignity and worth as anyone else.

The Catholic view that homosexuality is a disorder is a logically derived opinion, based on human biology (ie the functions of the human body - or 'natural law', to give it is old name). The theories of natural law actually stem originally from Aristotle, and so are actually philosophic in origin, not specifically from the Christian faith.

Many Christians ("bible believing" protestants) will condemn gay people purely because of what it says in the Old Testament. Catholics think that is an exceptionally poor argument and would never dream of trying to convince someone on this point based solely on what it says in an ancient book. Books say a lot of things, including a lot of unpleasant and/or downright silly things.

(For example, the Old Testament also makes clearly absurd and spurious claims about eating shellfish and wearing clothes of mixed fibres - these are in fact ancient Jewish purity laws. However, if someone chooses to base their view on homosexuality purely on the Old Testament, then they must also recognise the stuff about shellfish and mixed clothing. If they do not, then they are being hypocritical and so lack credibility)

So, in no way could the descriptions "extreme" or "irrational" be applied to Catholic opinion. Rather, it is moderate and logical.

Tragically in many places, (eg notably places like Iran and Saudi Arabia), gay people are actively and severely persecuted - executed even - purely for who they are. That in my opinion would be far more deserving of the descriptions "extreme and irrational".

Brian Cox :

He is a member of the High Energy Physics group at the University of Manchester, and works on the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)[2][3] at CERN, near Geneva, Switzerland. He is working on the R&D project of the FP420 experiment in an international collaboration to upgrade the ATLAS and the CMS experiment by installing additional, smaller detectors at a distance of 420 metres from the interaction points of the main experiments.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist)

Ok. I actually saw Cox on Jonathon Ross recently (after my previous posts on this thread). And I concede it did say he was "involved" (a rather vague term) in CERN and indeed had a picture of him there.

However, between his chat show appearances, BBC TV work (stagazing live, lectures etc), stage shows & tours he does with comedians, and role at Manchester Uni - all of which are current - it is very difficult for me to see how he can devote much of his time to contributing at CERN - or even physically being there - despite what it says about him on Wiki. There's only so many hours in the day!

Religion and Science compete for the answer to the question of the ultimate nature of reality in terms of where the universe came from and how we come to be here. Science is moving forward on this question whereas religion is woefully short of credible answers.

How can you say that, (in bold), given it was Catholic priest who came up with the big bang theory? Contrary to popular belief, Catholicism has been a major contributor to scientific advancement throughout history. We are just as curious and inquisitive about our environment as an atheist and value knowledge every bit as much.

Many Roman Catholic clerics throughout history have made significant contributions to science. These cleric-scientists include such illustrious names as Nicolaus Copernicus, Gregor Mendel, Georges Lemaître, Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, Pierre Gassendi, Roger Joseph Boscovich, Marin Mersenne, Francesco Maria Grimaldi, Nicole Oresme, Jean Buridan, Robert Grosseteste, Christopher Clavius, Nicolas Steno, Athanasius Kircher, Giovanni Battista Riccioli, William of Ockham, and many others. Hundreds of others have made important contributions to science from the Middle Ages through the present day.

The Church has also produced thousands of lay scientists and mathematicians, many of whom were the intellectual giants of their day. These scientists include Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Louis Pasteur, Blaise Pascal, André-Marie Ampère, Charles-Augustin de Coulomb, Pierre de Fermat, Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, Alessandro Volta, Augustin-Louis Cauchy, Pierre Duhem, Jean-Baptiste Dumas, Georgius Agricola and countless others.

The Jesuits in particular have made numerous significant contributions to the development of science. For example, the Jesuits have dedicated significant study to earthquakes, and seismology has come to be known as "the Jesuit science."[1] This, however, is only one of many significant contributions. The Jesuits have been described as "the single most important contributor to experimental physics in the seventeenth century."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric%E2%80%93scientists

(a pretty good list is contained within that link)

The Jesuits feature prominently - they are a pretty impressive outfit. My parish church is a Jesuit Church.

Given the big bang theory postulates the begining of the Universe, how can we - creatures who live within the Universe - possibly go back further than the start? Currenly, with the knowledge (theories rather) available to us, it would seem to me that, whatever stimulus caused the big bang must have come from a place not within our own universe - given the universe did not exist at the time.

I am sure that science will continue to progress - for all our benefit - and may well go on to turn what we currently understand about physics on its head. This is a good thing for all humanity.

I think with Catholicism's great historical and current contribution to science, and the fact (shown earlier) than Catholics and atheists work together to further and promote science, it is very clear to someone (without bias!) that there is no fundamental conflict between science and religion (or Catholicism, at least).

Cheers!

BF

[BudFan]

I think its only right to mock people for their deluded beliefs. Would you mock someone if they believe in fairies in the bottom of the garden or would you tell them to seek medical help ?

Would you mock someone who believes in love?

Can you point to "love"? Hold it in your hand?

Can you show me love? (thats not an offer btw )