There's no such thing as objectivity (so I may as well be religious).

[Snarky]

Do people necessarily make a conscious decision to ... develop mental illness? Just because a person is born with certain tendencies or predispositions to acting a certain way doesn't mean that they don't still have a choice in the matter.

Uh, no?

If you're crazy, that's something mostly beyond your control. (In some cases, making sure you take your medication can help.) Depending on how crazy you are, you may be able to act more or less normal, but a person with deep mental illness can not simply refrain from doing crazy things. It's kind of like saying you can choose not to die of cancer, or choose not to lose your memories and mind if you have Alzheimer's.

Along with your other examples, I see that you take a behaviorist view of human nature: as long as someone acts normal, they're not crazy. As long as someone doesn't molest kids, they're not pedophile. Your implication, I assume, is that as long as someone doesn't sleep with people of their own sex, they're not gay. This does not strike me as a particularly Christian way to look at it.

[miguel]

When you look at the Bible, do you ever have opinions on the rules stipulated there?

Andail, I had many questions and still have regarding the Bible. Well, not The Bible itself but the many gospels and scripts that were not included in it. I consider The Bible to be a light, condensed, chosen version of the events. The full event magnitude reveal a very complex thread, sometimes disturbing, some times divine.
I'm pretty cool about debating my beliefs and goblins in basement, so go ahead.

I'm pretty sure that no matter how early in the history of mankind, whenever there was a religion, there were people who we would call atheists around.

I'm not sure of that, Khris. It was not religion, of course, but that "thing" that we have engraved in our DNA was a interpretation of what they could not explain. The "thing" later becoming divinities is a more coherent approach to the matter, in my opinion. Language has a relevant part in it as well. God was surely one of the first words men created, out of respectful fear.

Quote from: miguel on Today at 14:25

    We would probably exterminate ourselves if we were 100% certain that "only" human laws can "punish" or "reward" us during our lifespan.

What...? Why?

Because we could.

It sounds like you're saing "it's better to view homosexuality as a sin, because the only alternative is viewing it as a crime". Is this what you believe, or am I misunderstanding you?

No, I'm saying that gay people are given the religious option of guilt or no guilt. While humans can and will burn homosexuals this century, and praise them the next one.
And yes, I don't judge gays, nor atheists.

Regarding "God wants them dead":
I wrote "why some (most? I don't know) religious people". Nowhere did I say "all Catholics".

Yes, you did. I apologize.

The other questions I guess it was meant for Monkey.

[waheela]

First off, I want to say that I honestly think every single one of the people in this thread are kind, well-intentioned people. I, as an atheist, have met and heard from a lot of shitty, spiteful Christians who revel in the fact that I am "going to burn in hell for all eternity". Similarly, I've met a lot of horrible atheists who go out of their way to step on Christians because they feel Christians are intellectually inferior. I have a lot of confidence in the fact that none of these people are in this thread though.

I choose to follow it because it gives me a sense of direction in my life, and a sense of purpose. I don't expect you (or anyone else for that matter) to just blindly accept what I believe and start following it. I'll share it, talk about it, and even try to have a semi-rational debate where we can both share our point of view. But is it wrong for me to follow my own conviction, especially when my own life's events show that doing so makes me into a better person?

I found monkey's statement interesting, and would honestly like to hear our thread's religious people's opinion on this. the following:

I do think it's possible for religion to make a person better, but there's one thing I'm still baffled about. Why do we need a book to tell us to be good to others? I was raised without religion, yet I still try to go out of my way to be kind and helpful towards others, try not to hate people who are different from me, try to be honest always and not hurt others... I will admit there are good things in The Bible. Jesus says some really great things. Kind of related to what Andail was saying though, if we do get our morals from the bible, which parts do we take? Not everything that Jesus says seems good to follow, and there are parts of The Bible where God endorses very horrendous things. How do we know which parts are still good to follow, and which are outdated, unhelpful or bigoted/sexist/racist?

What if God really does think slavery is ok, and that women are lesser to men? Is he right? Should we follow this? If God says something's moral, is it truly moral and good?

[miguel]

My opinion on monkey's statement is that it makes me happy to see somebody finding a path that makes him a better person. I don't really care what that path is.
But because I am a religious person as well, I understand perfectly what he means.

[kaput]

Religion is merely philosophy and the sooner people realise this, the better.

I'm not against the idea of a "god", but I certainly don't think god is a he or she sitting in a kingdom in the sky with some massive beard. Although, if god was a person he'd definitely have a beard.

There is certainly an energy in the universe that created us all, so is it not logical to presume that whatever it was is god? God is merely a word to describe whatever it was that created all things. It makes it easier for the human mind to comprehend.

So, in conclusion, arguing about who believes in what is pretty futile. It's good to believe in science, even if it doesn't answer all the questions and it's also ok to believe in a religion so long as you're not killing anybody or shoving it down anybodies throat. Faith is a part of human nature. It's a simple as the example of having faith that everything will be alright in the end or believing that everything will go arse up. Science provides the formula as to whether it will or won't. But it's not ALWAYS a certainty. but on average...

The bible, as with other 'certain' religious books, were written by storytellers. They were then edited by kings and then government. Everything is filtered and fabricated to keep people "in line". But who's to say that science hasn't been fabricated also? There's so little we really know until we discover it ourselves.

If you are going to have faith in anything - let it be faith in yourself. Be a good person. Follow your dreams. Read good books. Learn. Just be a decent person. Isn't that what it's all about?

We could even go way out there and blow our minds delving into how we don't really know anything and that EVERYTHING is man-made so, essentially, it could all be one big illusion.

But we won't go there. Because what's the point? Just live and be happy.

Oh, and let people have equal rights.

The end.

[waheela]

My opinion on monkey's statement is that it makes me happy to see somebody finding a path that makes him a better person. I don't really care what that path is.
But because I am a religious person as well, I understand perfectly what he means.

Sorry, I meant...

"I found monkey's statement interesting, and would honestly like to hear our thread's religious people's opinion on this <insert colon here>"

Would like to hear your opinion on the below, if possible.

I do think it's possible for religion to make a person better, but there's one thing I'm still baffled about. Why do we need a book to tell us to be good to others? I was raised without religion, yet I still try to go out of my way to be kind and helpful towards others, try not to hate people who are different from me, try to be honest always and not hurt others... I will admit there are good things in The Bible. Jesus says some really great things. Kind of related to what Andail was saying though, if we do get our morals from the bible, which parts do we take? Not everything that Jesus says seems good to follow, and there are parts of The Bible where God endorses very horrendous things. How do we know which parts are still good to follow, and which are outdated, unhelpful or bigoted/sexist/racist?

What if God really does think slavery is ok, and that women are lesser to men? Is he right? Should we follow this? If God says something's moral, is it truly moral and good?

[Khris]

Miguel,
you said that if earth's population were 100% atheist, we would exterminate ourselves, because we could. Care to elaborate? Why would you think that?
You don't get to make an outrageous statement like this without backing it up.

No, I'm saying that gay people are given the religious option of guilt or no guilt. While humans can and will burn homosexuals this century, and praise them the next one.

What do you mean by that? What guilt? They should feel guilty for not repressing their personality? Please explain.
Do you know what motivates people to burn others? Totalitarian belief systems. Dehumanization of outsiders. Please explain how this is a consequence of secular humanist ideals.
And why would you think people praise homosexuals?

[Adeel]

    Why people believe in anything? That's simply because ofFAITH. We, as a human beings, have a tendency to believe or have faith in something whether it be money, religion, morality, computers, cars, etc. ANYTHING. Religious people believe that God Does EXIST while Atheists hold faith that there is no God. But the way the world is going i.e. injustice to people makes me believe that there will be a final judgment day where the justice will served.

    Now, on to the original discussion. Regarding the question whether religion contradicts science or not. In my opinion, its both i.e. Yes and No. I elaborate it further as:

     
• There were times when the religion(s) contradicted and opposed science. Many of you look towards the dark ages of Europe (when Government was under Church). It's unfortunate that science was called evil subject in those days. But that were the mere opinion of Popes or Fathers of that era. I haven't read Bible but I know this: in any part of the Bible, there will be NO opposition of science.

     
• But now let's talk about a particular religion which I have some knowledge and feel confident enough to discuss about. Yes, I am talking about Islam and No, that doesn't you all have to raise your eyebrows.
  
      Islam hasn't opposed science from the start. The Quran (holy book of Islam) invites people to ponder at this vast universe. That's why many philosophical personalities of that time converted to Islam. There are many facts written in The Quran. There are many lines in The Quran which were not understood by then but now in the light of fresh research, they are not only completely understood but proved too. Many researchers converted to Islam because they were amazed that how suprising the facts written in a Book 1400 years ago (without any equipment and/or science) were proved true. For the sake of simplicity, it was assumed that an illiterate man (as many of you believe it too) had written many facts in a Book and they are proving to be true. Was it a lucky guess? But in that case, there would be only one or two proved. Hence their scientific analysis led Scientists towards the conclusion that there was a Superior Power at work who had told this man because other than there was no humanly possible way to collect such facts.   Here, I quote one translated line from a chapter of The Quran (relating to solar system) for the discussion's sake:
  
  

  "And all are revolving in their circles."

  
      And another translated one from a chapter in which people are openly invited to ponder:
  
  

  "And there are signs in universe for those, who think and ponder."

  
      That was the sole reason that Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) advised all the Muslims (irrespective of Male or Female) to gain knowledge and not only religious one but the other ones (scientific, philosophical, etc) too. Why? Because only due to the knowledge people would be able to ponder on the universe and verify the truth of Islam. Below, I quote one of Mohammad (PBUH)'s advise (which is one of mine favorites.):
  
  

  "Gain knowledge. Even if you have to travel China for it. "

  
      The above quote highly encourages us to gain scientific knowledge. You may say it was meant to be for religious one. But if it was meant to be religious one then he wouldn't have advised people at all to travel China b/c he himself was the fountain of religious knowledge.
  
      That's why, we see that when Europe was in its dark ages, Muslim areas were at the peak of prosperity. Why? Because they were learning science. Evidence shows that Muslims were the first who started experimental science rather than philosophical science maintained by Greeks (which was not science at all). Because of this, we see many shining names whom achievements are hailed by the Modern Scientists. I mention few names:

• Ibn Al-Haytham (known in west as Alhazen)
• Musa Al-Khwarizmi
• Jabir ibn Hayyan - often known simply as Geber
• Al Beruni
• Al Kindi

    By writing all of the above, my intention was to describe that even though many religions have opposed Science. Islam hasn't. The above lines clearly define that science and religion CAN CO-EXIST. I say again that I described Islam only because it is the only religion about which I have what you can call: proper knowledge. I do not descend from a very religious family. My mother is religious and so is my brother. My Father and I are hardly a practicing Muslim yet no one forced me to practice.  However, I have studied and analyzed enough to make me understand that there are many thing which are beyond the human control. Yes, I was educated as a Muslim yet I have been given a choice and after much pondering I have chosen to stay Muslim. Religion is more than just a mere philosophy. Its more than just brainwashing. Its the name of wide and open mindedness. I am pretty sure about Islam. Others, I do not know for I don't have much knowledge but that doesn't mean they are worthless. I respect them too.

[Khris]

I'll just leave this here:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an

[miguel]

Khris, I'll start with the second question if I may:

When I talk about guilt I mean a religious guilt, I am supposing that a gay person may feel guilty of not obeying religious rules. I am not saying a gay person should feel guilty because he/she's gay.
This said, IF there is guilt involved, it's of a personal nature. Shared between the person and God.
The only "harm" this person will feel is on its own private conscience. 
Human Justice is different. And changes according to country, races and time itself. Democratic countries vary on their laws towards gays. Gay people get arrested in some Democratic countries.
What I want to say, Khris, and believe me that I am being honest, is that I do not think that men can safely take care of our world without the notion of the divine. I truly believe that the divine instils a different (hopefully better) dimension to our lives.

And why would you think people praise homosexuals?

I didn't mean it like that. I mean that there were times that male relationships were "normal" within certain parts of societies and that it may as well be again, considering that "tastes" are forever bond to a certain type of time wheel.

I think I sort of answered your first question as well. I feel that we would eventually fail to resist self-destruction without the notion of the divine.

[Adeel]

Khris, I may sound rude but I think you should consider what I am going to say. Not the tone in which it is said. BTW, I am not butt-hurt. Here we go:

    I am actually face-palming myself. Are you actually an idiot or just pretending to be one? Or maybe, you are not ready to accept anything. Sir, you just missed the entire point of writing. What I meant to say is that Religion and Science can co-exist peacefully. At least in Islam. I quoted so that anyone would be able to understand why I believe this. But instead of getting the point, you acted rather childish and went on to google

SCIENTIFIC ERRORS IN QURAN just so you can prove me wrong. I think you missed this part:

    That's why, we see that when Europe was in its dark ages, Muslim areas were at the peak of prosperity. Why? Because they were learning science. Evidence shows that Muslims were the first who started experimental science rather than philosophical science maintained by Greeks (which was not science at all). Because of this, we see many shining names whom achievements are hailed by the Modern Scientists. I mention few names:[/li][/list]

• Ibn Al-Haytham (known in west as Alhazen)
• Musa Al-Khwarizmi
• Jabir ibn Hayyan - often known simply as Geber
• Al Beruni
• Al Kindi

    By writing all of the above, my intention was to describe that even though many religions have opposed Science. Islam hasn't. The above lines clearly define that science and religion CAN CO-EXIST.

Why don't you set out to prove me wrong that the one I quoted here is not true. Go on, have play with Google
  Well, one thing is proved: Extremists exist in many forms. Atheists Extremists are equally ignorant and arrogant as the Religious Ones.
    Good day to you.

[Ali]

I haven't read Bible but I know this: in any part of the Bible, there will be NO opposition of science.

This is an odd sentence. In a funny way, it sums up the whole argument for me.

[Khris]

Miguel:
I'm saying that whenever gays were persecuted, it wasn't because taste had changed, it was because people considered them dirty sinners.
I don't really care about how certain types of Christians choose to interpret the bible. Homosexuals were chased down and killed because people thought it was divinely commanded. Women were burned as witches because people thought it was divinely commanded. And Christianity has a long history of antisemitism (which is kinda weird, given that their God is one third jew).
Sure, you could say they didn't interpret the bible right or they didn't follow Jesus properly, but the point is that these people killed others because they thought their bible told them to.
Now explain how an atheist can use secular law to justify killing someone.

Gay people get arrested in some Democratic countries.

Could you stop making claims without backing them up? Sources please.

Adeel:

Many researchers converted to Islam because they were amazed that how suprising the facts written in a Book 1400 years ago (without any equipment and/or science) were proved true. [...] Hence their scientific analysis led Scientists towards the conclusion that there was a Superior Power at work who had told this man because other than there was no humanly possible way to collect such facts.

But please, face-palm as much as you like.

[geork]

I feel like I want to reply: Put a completely different spin on things

Firstly: Khris, I can kind of see where a lot of your points are coming from (somehow you always end up as the 'bad guy' ) and I'd agree that some sections do still engage in brainwashing (although they are nowhere near as effective now - at least in the western world - since culture has become so disillusioned) but I think that wiki article was a little uncalled for; at least 2 of Einstein's theories have been proven wrong... the brambles grow on both sides of the bush.

How bout this as a theory: What if different epochs of humankind viewed 'obectivity' and 'truth' through different "lenses"? What if, at some point, religion was a "lens", and now science is a "lens"? I wonder what will be next... maybe philosophy will be a "lens" and no-one will ever get any work done

Whatever, I like it... I'll call it "lens theory"

I'm not going to bother engaging with this "religion vs science" debate that appears to be going on - if scientists had a way to impose abstract laws on people at the expense of science, they would - at the end of the day, some people will subvert anything to get power.

[Problem]

at least 2 of Einstein's theories have been proven wrong... the brambles grow on both sides of the bush.

Yes, but there's still a major difference between science and religion in this regard. In science, being proven wrong is part of the process. You can't really prove a theory to be true, but you can prove it to be wrong. This is something you have to understand when you talk about science. It's all about falsifiablility. In science, a theory should better be testable. I come up with theory, you prove it wrong - and that's fine, because now we can come up with a better theory. That's the process, and that's quite a difference between science and religion.
If you manage to prove one of Einstein's theories to be wrong, you are the hero. If you manage to prove a religious dogma to be wrong, you are a filthy heretic!

[Khris]

Exactly, and geork, I wouldn't call that a theory but rather a completely absurd hypothesis based on cluelessness about how science works.
Also, according to a quick google search, Einstein has been proved wrong on two major issues (for instance quantum events are truly random, and he wouldn't accept this). It's not like he was the father of two theories that have later been proved false.
Please look up what a scientific theory is. It's very different from a hypothesis or an assertion, let alone religious dogma.

if scientists had a way to impose abstract laws on people at the expense of science, they would - at the end of the day, some people will subvert anything to get power.

Please STFU. Making baseless generalized accusations like this really makes you look stupid.

[Adeel]

While these debates are really engaging. These are mostly worthless. No matter how many words are thrown. No matter how many theories, hypothesis, observations are presented. No matter how many sources are presented. In the end, everything becomes useless. Because everyone keeps faith and no matter what you do. You can't change their faith unless they decide to do so.
    Hence, I close this discussion (from my side) with these two words:

KEEP FAITH

[Calin Leafshade]

Often, these debates are labelled as "fruitless" or "pointless". I disagree. In fact, my very position on the matter has been forged in debates like these.

[Lt. Smash]

I could say "Fuck! So many people believing in old unproven shit that has absolutely nothing to do with todays life? Man, I'm gonna have some beers to cope with that."
Because that's my opinion. But my opinion is just an idea, a feeling that has no proven context, therefore is absolutely rubbish until I can probe it to be true or not to be true.

That's science. Ideas, theories, assumptions can all be science, if you can effectively claim them to be true or not to be true. Actually it's the process that takes to prove if something is true or false.

Religion is not that different. It's also about ideas, theories, assumptions about a god, some important people (mostly prophets), rules about a better society... If you can effectively prove one of the assumptions of any of the various religions to be true, then they are also part of science.

The difference between science and religion is that most religions state that it is a fact that there were some prophets, there is god, it is the best to have no sex before marriage, you should honor your family (regardless how cruel or nice they are) and millions of other "facts".
While there are some things you can prove to be true or false - like the earth being a sphere and no disk - there are many things that we cannot really question ATM. Because these things are more abstract, not entirely defined; you cannot catch them.
When you ask two people about what is god, will they have the exact same answer? I don't think so.

Science will always improve it's methods for proving things. Eventually we WILL know if there ever was or is a thing like god.

Morals are a bit different. Is it good to kill somebody? Are there circumstances where it is less bad or good to do so? Who tells you if it is?
Everybody has to ask for himself. In general, if you are not influenced by religion or science most people will come to the same conclusion. Based on this we can form a system of law on which most of the people agree.
If it gets to morals, there is one simple sentence which you can answer all question: "Don't treat others in ways you wouldn't want to be treaten yourself!" or "Don't harm others because you don't want them to harm you".

What do I want to say with that? Science and religion can go hand in hand but when something is proven to be true or to be false, you shouldn't call it religion any more. Religion is about beliefs. If you know something for sure, you do not need to believe it, you just know it. So guys, stop criticizing each other and just open your eyes and ask things. Just keep asking Why? until he/she doesn't know the answer or the answer is already found.

[miguel]

Khris, so you're saying that only religious people "attack" gays? A gay is beaten up in a street in Berlin and you are 100% sure the offender is a Catholic?
He's not a f.... ass-hole with no idea of what he's doing in the world, no, he's a Catholic because he hates gays! That's not something that I'd think you would believe. But things change when hate is around, isn't it?
Are we still talking about the inquisition or can we move please?
You got stuck in the medieval ages regarding religion concepts like I could get stuck in political concepts regarding some of the countries that entered WW2.
I chose not to base my opinion on people due to mistakes that were done.
But this is me.

In the USA there are laws that forbid gay people to kiss in a Shopping Mall, you wanted examples. Unless USA isn't democratic but a Catholic Country like the Vatican.