Johnny Vodka
Well-Known Member
Robder for PM! 
Religion....
- Thread starter OllieNotts
- Start date
NOW Robders extremely blinkered bias makes sense!
Well that would depend largely on whether Neanderthal agreed to be bound in servitude to Homo Sapiens doesn't it ?Otherwise might find itself on the menu and in a similar target zone to Gorilla Gorilla
Not at all, I think you completely miss the point. I would argue that integrating "with thy neighbour" and being generally socialble could be deemed entirely selfish ie. Why do I chose to trade with my neighbour, not steal from him and not sleep with his wife? Because ultimately it avoids conflicts > by avoiding conflict I continue to live. Its an innate survival instinct.
Well, yes, of course - where in my posts did I suggest any different. To seem to have confused my disdain for religion for libra scale of 'Man' = good, 'God' = bad. But that is a complete paradox, since 'God' = man.
For what it's worth, I am of the opinion that 99.99% of the World's problems, suffering and hardships are man-made. Not really the argument I was trying to make.
No, no, no & no.
Faith = belief without proof.
Science = is the objective understanding of our universe through trial, error and EVIDENCE!
Whilst I agree some people seem to worship science to an repressive degree, by definition they are in fact polar opposites, and should never been confused. Science should guide us as a species, not dictate us.
One of the fundamental differences between religion and science is that religion preaches evilness, but attempts to disguise it as being good, devine or holy. Whilst science can indeed be used for evil, it is clear for all to see, and can be condemned by others.
If we are to take this debate off to a tangent and down the War path, then for my two cent: war is never good. But unfortunately it is sometimes necessary.
kimajy
Well-Known Member
I think I do not miss the point :
Where did I bring God into a debate on Religion ? Man does indeed make a rod for his own back, though.
We are talking surely about what does happen rather than what should happen ? I do not believe there is anything wrong in principle with understanding without proof. Proof is itself only possible by reference to a series of "givens". You implied yourself that scientific understanding (which is "proof-led") is prone to change. That is because even the most fundamental assumptions of the concepts of time and space themselves are all based purely on a conceptualization of reality which will no doubt also turn out to be "incorrect". Man's obsession with finding "truth" through science is fundamentally flawed. He may achieve an element of control and manipulation of his world through Scientific understanding, however he will surely not find any meaningful and worthwhile 'connection' with it that way.
I cannot speak on what "Religion" preaches - I do not listen to preachers and never have. I disagree that science is "clear for all to see". Science which is open to misuse has just as often been hidden from all who might condemn it ! I have no intention of getting on any 'War Path' in a debate on religion
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Phil_Dicko
Active Member
I'm no lover of religion, as my posts here show I hope, but that is a pretty sweeping statement. And might i add, given the overt reference to a moral code in the word 'evilness', quite an unscientific one at that.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big advocate of science. It has brought our species forward faster than maybe anything in history. But I'm also an advocate of the idea that any scientific discipline (and I include history and economics in that) should always be conducted with a full appreciation of the philosophical questions that supercede it. There are some questions science can't answer on its own.
Unfortunately, there are a foolish number in our species who won't open up to a scientific answer to any question.
Last edited by a moderator:
Depends what you mean by "hidden". Hiding in the literal sense of the word, as in a cover-up, or merely being unable to comprehend what it is that is being tested/proved?
An example being: the horrific use of science used by the Nazis to torture & kill innocent thousands inhumanely. Physically these crimes were attempted to be concealed, and wiped from history as it were, but in black and white it's pretty obvious what happens and no understanding of science or lack of can alter that.
Whereas religion: burn homosexuals because homosexuality is wrong, and the those who practice it are sinners.
Clearly incorrect. Clearly backwards. But presented as truth, and presented as good.
In regards to "conceptualizing reality" - how else are we supposed to justify and understand our place in the Universe?! Whilst I believe religion is abhorrent and somewhat of a red herring, I would still strongly argue that spirituality and artistic romance - both of the natural & unnatural World - are essential, and without them, science is obsolete because without juxtaposition it would surely be enough to drive even the most intelligent of men insane.
... And plus, even Stephen Fry enjoys swearing (!)
Of course intrigue directs the path science takes. But such is the diverse nature, and exponential increase of the human race, inevitably more and more "answers" will be revealed, which in turn will reveal further questions. The cycle is never-ending.
You need an abstract concept as a starting point from which to progress to a logical discovery - therefore the 2 cannot exist without the other.
Yeah well, I thought we were discussing religion's impact on society as a whole, I didn't think we were discussing Robder.
Hilariously, you've just went full circle and repeated my orginal point back to me, which is that religions are similar to dicatatorships.
Stop ranting Rob, I thought this was turning into an interesting, open discussion but you clearly just want to showboat.
And it's ****ing annoying when you trying to paint anyone who has a different point of view as "pro-Religion".
"Does religion cause chaos? I thought it inflicted order? Often unwanted order, but order nonetheless."
I didn't agree with your definition of order.
And you're getting personal as per berluddy usual.
Pffft.
I cannot speak on what "Religion" preaches - I do not listen to preachers and never have. I disagree that science is "clear for all to see". Science which is open to misuse has just as often been hidden from all who might condemn it ! I have no intention of getting on any 'War Path' in a debate on religion .[/QUOTE]
Today science is not performed in a vacuum. All scientific discoveries are held up to peer reviews. If you look at things from speed of light to how we measure temperature, they are constantly reevaluated to see if they are still valid. The religious dogma stands pat on what was proclaim in a bygone era without taking in the evolution of man and society. Today if someone said they are inspired by a higher power and this is the way we should live or govern ourselves. They will be labeled as a charlatan, heretic, cultist or crazy by society and religious leaders. Why can't someone of our time be inspired by or be spoken to by a higher power as has been done in the past?
.[/QUOTE]Today science is not performed in a vacuum. All scientific discoveries are held up to peer reviews. If you look at things from speed of light to how we measure temperature, they are constantly reevaluated to see if they are still valid. The religious dogma stands pat on what was proclaim in a bygone era without taking in the evolution of man and society. Today if someone said they are inspired by a higher power and this is the way we should live or govern ourselves. They will be labeled as a charlatan, heretic, cultist or crazy by society and religious leaders. Why can't someone of our time be inspired by or be spoken to by a higher power as has been done in the past?
Back to the subject of marriage...great bible quote:
A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin she shall be executed.
Deuteronomy 22:13-21
Sounds perfectly fair and balanced to me.
It's laughable isn't it!
It's all a charade to numb, suppress & control
Phil_Dicko
Active Member
A religion, definitely. Many religions, maybe. Not all religion. You have to qualify these things. Not really fair to tarnish them all with the same brush. What are scientology's opinions on homosexuals?
Back to the subject of marriage...great bible quote:
A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin she shall be executed.
Deuteronomy 22:13-21
Sounds perfectly fair and balanced to me.
A brutal and horrific example of a moral code handed down through religious documents. And I'm sure there are countless other examples.
But almost all these examples come from the Old Testament in Christainity's case. Even at a young age, I found the Church's acceptance of both texts difficult to square. They are very different texts from very different eras, informed by differing cultural contexts, preaching, in some cases, complete opposites on behalf of a very different God. Another cast iron flaw in the institutionalisation and formalisation of Christianity, no doubt.
Interestingly the bible contains an awful lot of cosmic symbolism - through stories like Adam & Eve etc.
It's only by reading between the lines that it's possible to see the Goddess bits coming through.
i.e. the snake represents sexual freedom...(the snake is often used to represent male genitalia) and eating the apple is the act of the warrior - i.e. having the courage to search for your own truth above all else.
...but of course Eve(il) is a slut because she wanted to be an independent woman.
This thinking has screwed us over - even in today's modern world.
It's only by reading between the lines that it's possible to see the Goddess bits coming through.
i.e. the snake represents sexual freedom...(the snake is often used to represent male genitalia) and eating the apple is the act of the warrior - i.e. having the courage to search for your own truth above all else.
...but of course Eve(il) is a slut because she wanted to be an independent woman.
This thinking has screwed us over - even in today's modern world.
Phil_Dicko
Active Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RT6rL2UroE&feature=fvst
I think Carlin sums it up pretty well there. Especially the conflict of old and new teachings. That has always bugged me, even as a "believing" child.
I think Carlin sums it up pretty well there. Especially the conflict of old and new teachings. That has always bugged me, even as a "believing" child.
Last edited by a moderator:
A religion, definitely. Many religions, maybe. Not all religion. You have to qualify these things. Not really fair to tarnish them all with the same brush.As far as I'm aware, although most religions repress homosexuality, only a handful opt for this hardlined approach (!) However, lots of people seem to like subdividing & segregating people into groups, whether it be ethnicity, sexuality, or religious persuasion. Whilst I will acknowledge that each religion has varying degrees of absurdity, my main point is that all religion is absurd and therefore to differentiate does little to my argument.
What are scientology's opinions on homosexuals?Isn't David Gest a follower of Scientology? In which case I would imagine they are pretty open to it!
Phil_Dicko
Active Member
There are some grounds/premises on which I might call all religion completely and outrightly absurd, but I suspect those probably wouldn't be the same grounds/premises as your own. Plus they are philosophical premises about language and how we attain 'knowledge' of metaphysics, not about the inhumanity or not of certain moral laws.
From a more social/humanist (less philosophical) perspective, I prefer to analyse each religion on it's own merits personally. For example, I know very little about Buddhism. So I couldn't and wouldn't reject it as absurd because I simply don't have grounds to. Certainly not on grounds of moral belief systems.
Last edited by a moderator:
Is he?
Gay? Or Scientologist?
I'm fairly certain I've read he is a Scientologist. He certainly moves, 'within those circles'.
As for being gay, it's long been rumoured, but he has never come out. Personally I think he's so far in the closet he's dining with Aslan. That short-lived ill-contrived marriage to Liza Minnelli was obviously a sham (on at least one of their parts). And let's face it, she's the biggest faghag going!