Science beats religion if...:

God is this thread.

 

If they don't hurt anyone then no, I have no problem with it, but that's not entirely the case is it, religion has been the cause for all sorts of evil. we all know how god came about, he (it's a man of course) was created to explain what our great ancestors couldn't explain, which doesn't make sense to me, why create something unexplainable to explain the unexplainable? I should add, I understand why people would believe in that, but not today.

And even if God is real, my point about the fairy tale still stands, because we tell these stories, and pass them off like they really happened, which is wrong. Jesus didn't really make blind people see, deaf people hear etc, that was just metaphorical, but we tell our kids like it's a fact, I don't think that's right.

And who really is right here? According to christians, those suicide bombers will be going straight to hell, but those suicide bombers think they're going straight to heaven, who's right, is either even right?

 

Not really. Religions just a bunch of books. People decide whether a book is telling them to kill or extort, rather than heal or be fair.

It's beside the point though. Judge people by their actions, not by their beliefs. Can I deal with a person being really racist, if they never act on their racism in any way? Totally! Can I deal with someone believing that the earth is flat, as long as they're not flying a plane accordingly? Sure!

Why? What do we understand about the creation of the universe that we didn't then? We have an idea about a big bang, but it's far from definite, still just a theory.

And I don't think the old god was regarded as "unexplainable" particularly. That's probably a much more modern notion of god.

 

"And I don't think the old god was regarded as "unexplainable" particularly"

He wasn't regarded that way, but that's what he is. A christian will ask a non believer "well how did the universe start?", yet religion doesn't answer that question either, in fact it raises a bigger question than it answers, if god created the universe, who created god?

"Why? What do we understand about the creation of the universe that we didn't then?"

We still don't know, but at least science doesn't make up answers to then pass off as fact, that's dogmatic. We know other things though thanks to science, like where man came from (evolution), roughly how old the earth is (more than 5000 years old).

 

That's because at this point in history, organised religion is clinging to the uncertainties we have left, taking the possibility that it might not be totally wrong or that their accusers can't be 100% sure of anything and using that to ensure its survival. In other words, they consider it a victory if science isn't 100% right at a given time, because it keeps them in a job. Would you prefer that they were executing anyone who didn't agree with them?

Yeah, I'll be honest though, there's been a resurgence in literal interpretation of the Bible (as one example of religion) in America, once which hasn't really been borne out worldwide. It tends to happen when a nation feels "under fire". Elsewhere, you'll find, people have a more mature attitude to religion. Most accept that their holy text is an old book, that it's been translated back and forth a hundred times and so on. They aren't the people who are up there on the pulpit or the soapbox telling everyone to take the book literally because they've absorbed the message; they are humble, they are modest, they are aware of their shortcomings. Preachers don't molest kids because they're preachers; they preach and molest because they're the type of person who can just do what they want and assume it's right, and use any justification they can to justify it.

Have to say though, theories about evolution and the age of the universe truly are far from complete.

 

"Have to say though, theories about evolution and the age of the universe truly are far from complete."

Universe yes, but evolution has enough evidence for me to take it as fact.

"Preachers don't molest kids because they're preachers; they preach and molest because they're the type of person who can just do what they want and assume it's right, and use any justification they can to justify it."

That wasn't the only issue though, it was also how poorly the pope and the church handled it. Also isn't everything Gods plan, so where do priests molesting little boys work into that plan?

 

The general idea I'm down with. I just don't understand how scientists can make the guesses/extrapolations that they do about the origins of specific species. I can imagine that the current thinking on how life as we know it evolved could be proven totally wrong, without contradicting the likelihood of evolution.

And of course, evolution doesn't discount the possibility of a god, only specific religions.

Oh, I know. But again, it's a human element abusing the faith.

And no, the idea that everything is "Gods plan" is pretty old-fashioned and not widely believed. The whole concept of The Fall Of Man is basically a get-out clause for God, and regardless of religion the whole notion that we live in "the best of all possible worlds" was more or less totally annihilated in the 18th century. I'm sure a fair number of Americans will have revived that idea though, just like they've done with every other unevolved, backwards aspect of Christianity.

 

"And of course, evolution doesn't discount the possibility of a god, only specific religions."

It discounts the bible though, the whole Adam and Eve story.

"And no, the idea that everything is "Gods plan" is pretty old-fashioned and not widely believed."

It is widely believed, and it's widely believed because people take comfort thinking that there's some purpose, that everything must be part of a superior beings master plan, they hate the idea that the universe could just be random.

Question, why is it ok for a person to believe in a mystical being that created the universe, but not ok for someone (an adult) to believe in the tooth fairy, or santa clause? What's the difference?

 

If taken literally, yes. That said, the whole Adam and Eve story does feature a period when Man was a hermaphrodite... just saying.

As I say, I don't know what it's like in America these days, but I don't know many that seriously believe God wills all things and thus all things are for the best here. Pretty much every culture has some kind of "Fall", when Man goes from being among the gods to being "cut loose" to fend for himself, and presumably in that moment becoming responsible for his own actions. There's a kind of Freudian, umbilical thing there which makes a kind of sense.

You tell me. We might know that Santa and the Tooth Fairy are SPOILER ALERT just our parents sneaking around at night, but the things they represent are still very real to us. You might know that the sun will come up whether you make a solstice sacrifice or not, but you still celebrate Christmas. You might know that someone can't actually control you with your lost teeth using hexcraft, but how would you feel about some guy having all your baby teeth?

 

NOOOOO!!!!!!!

why didn't you use a whiter shade of white!!!!

 

Well you've fucking blown it now

 

Ok well getting back to your original point of whether religion is really bad if people aren't harming anyone else, or practicing it privately etc, I guess no, it's not really harmful, but it's still untrue.

I think people should embrace science for real answers, most people turn to religion for comfort, and that's fine, but again, comfort isn't always what's correct. Some people might not want to be told that they have cancer, it's denying the truth to feel better about yourself.

 

lol^

like you are some sort of authority figure on which beliefs are valid and true and which are false...

 

I don't believe science has all the answers. All the facts, maybe, but it depends on you asking scientific questions to provide answers.

 

Well that's the beauty of science, we don't know everything, we don't pretend to have all the answers, science is the search for truth. As apposed to religion which states itself as fact.

 

While few are foolish enough to claim that science has all the answers, many will claim that science can have all the answers. The former I can agree with, but the latter is giving science a task it isn't meant for. I think humanities - sociology, psychology, etc., is what we end up with at the end of that - disciplines that are creative as well as analytical, combining the study of fact with the study of meaning.

Religion, I feel, should be little more than food for thought, but certainly theology and the like fit into this arena of thinkingarts.