Well it's been a long time since I've read the bible (over 10 years). I can't recall their being a section where all the animals of Earth are listed. Although maybe there is. Nevertheless, religion isn't about scientific fact (although there is the place for that in religion) but faith and belief. There's a lot that science doesn't explain, and I believe there is a lot more to life and the universe than what we can see and perceive through our own five senses. I also think it's totally unfair that ordinary religious people get tarred with the same brush as scum who skewer the principles of religion to support their own warped view of the world, whether ISIS or the Westboro Baptist Church.
The gap that science doesn't explain is the gap that religion fills. In the past that was almost everything. Why do the starts and the planets move the way they do? Supernatural forces. Then along comes Copernicus and the religionists finally (after various abominations including threats of torture, the dears) admitted, "yes, that bit's not supernatural but the rest is". Then another, then another set of beliefs fell. Now, the gaps are much smaller and we get to the ludicrous level of creationists arguing that natural selection works but not at the start and not for "irreducible complexity". The gaps are becoming tinier and tinier and, hopefully, one day they will disappear and we can be rid of the poison of religion. Poison? Yes. Don't forget that 400 years ago, mainstream Christianity supported viciously sadistic punishments for anyone who didn't believe what they were told to believe. Christianity is not naturally benign; dogma never can be, as belief brooks no contradiction. It's been forced to soften by the bravery of rational people saying "No, what you so fervently believe in (e.g. geocentric universe) is not true and this is why". If it wasn't for rationality we'd still be under the heel of the church. Look at the Middle East, an area where science was progressing but where it lost the fight to an all-powerful religion, and see where we could have been. Vin
Christianity was a religion of love and compassion and being a good person...also carried the message of tolerance. It was subsequently corrupted. It is the same with Islam, I consider the more extreme version of Islam as about the same level as the Crusaders with its sense of righteousness and lack of tolerance. Islam used to be known for it's scientific and mathematical learning, but they have staggered to a halt. Their lack of progress has given them a chip on their shoulders, because they think that being top dog is the natural order of things.
Indeed. It's a bit of a game changer to say the least. It could even destabilise the world economy, but I'm fairly sure it will recover. My worry is that those countries with leverage, because of their fossil fuel resource, will find that leverage disappearing. Then where will we be..?
Firstly you're talking a lot about how religion (specifically) Christianity was in the past. You said it yourself, 400 yeas ago. But that's irrelevant nowadays. Going back 400 years to justify a view is the kind of thing Al-Qieada do. Soldiers back in the 15th century used to pillage, murder and rape. That doesn't mean, the British armed forces are a completely immoral organisation that condone and carry out such things. Religious practice, as all aspects of society in those days, were a product of, and influenced by, the cultural norms of the time. Those norms do not apply nowadays as attitudes and beliefs change, it's jut like how you don't get air forces carpet bombing cities nowadays, it would no be accepted (and rightly so). Secondly, again don't tar all religious people even the same brush, as I say once again, not every Christian is a Westboro Baptist lunatic, nor is every Muslim an ISIS scum. It is completely unfair to 99.99% of people with moderate and tolerant views, the kind of people who live their lives following the kind of values Fran are talking about. Thirdly, the Middle-East was culturally and technologically more advance than the West for a long time under Muslim rule. Fourthly, I find it amusing that many atheists (whether or not you are one yourself) purport to be against religion because of it's supposed intolerance, yet they themselves are intolerant of the beliefs of those who happen to have religious views (of the non-extremist kind)
I was just pointing out how science has rolled back religion, much, much, much for the betterment of mankind's lot. The fact that I'm not going to be sadistically punished for my views on this forum is as a direct result of what science forced upon christianity in the enlightenment. It was science that caused the change in religion, not somethig religion ever showed any signs of doing in the previous few centuries until it was forced to accept that it didn't have the answers to everything (or nowadays, the answers to very much at all). I've not tarred anyone with anything. I love the fact that you have an imaginary friend to give you moral guidance. I prefer to rely on my own moral compass. I said pretty much the same as you about the Middle East. Unfortunately, rationality later lost against religion, so a new dark age descended upon the arabs, for which I am truly sorry. (Did you know that more books were translated into Spanish every single year for the past decade than have EVER been translated into Arabic? Tragic.) I don't care what religious people think. I'm not intolerant of them; people behave in a way that seems rational to them and who am I to pass judgment? I'm not intolerant. I would describe myself more as (internally) dismissive when someone uses a supernatural being as an explanation of anything. It's lazy and reminds me of parents saying to their kids "it just is" or "because I say so" when they don't have a rational answer to a question. I'm intolerant of nobody, bar idiots. Unfortunately for my blood pressure, they always seem to stand behind me at Saints matches. Particularly away ones. Vin
In fairness to Vin, by conversing with you on your differing beliefs, he is tolerating you. Although the phrase "imaginary friend" may be slightly loaded, the reality is that there's no evidence out there of proof of a 'god' or any higher being, so by it's very nature it can only exist currently as a figment of imagination. So what he's saying is inarguably true, not necessarily taking the piss.
What's intolerant about having a sense of humour? Humour generally deflates and sometimes illuminates pomposity and intolerance. It's certainly worked its wonders here. Vin
Not religious myself, though you might say I am an admirer of Jesus, but you can't discount someone's belief because of lack of proof. There is no proof God doesn't exist either. Comes down to faith. The only thing I would say is that I don't believe an omnipotent being cares what you wear or eat or what shape your genitals are...so I reserve right to criticise stuff like that. The advantage of a belief in God is that if Pomps is right he is covered and if atheists are right Pomps is still okay.
Ah but then you're being a little intolerant by not considering the fact that due to his beliefs, PL may find your words blasphemous and therefore not sitting easily with humour. I'd disagree personally, but unfortunately one of the key tenets (imprisoning devices?) of religion is introducing the fear of saying anything bad about the creator...I believe even questioning anything in the Koran is considered "Haram", or forbidden (which makes it terribly convenient in terms of not allowing uncomfortable discourse for scholars). However, that right to not be blasphemed around should be respected in a discussion.
Yes, humour is great but using a term as loaded as 'imaginary friend', especially as an imaginary friend is something kids or people with absolutely no friends have, whether intended in a humorous way or not is very much borderline IMO. I'm not offended myself because I'm not easily offended, but I could see how some people might be.... I'm not blasphemed, it's just respecting people's views whether you agree with them or not. You may be a complete atheist and not believe in God or Jesus or anything like that, and vocally express that on this forum. As long as you don't attack my beliefs and make it 'personal', I respect your beliefs and your right to hold such beliefs, even if I do not agree with them. As I would with any kind of belief e.g. political.
