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

[Ryan Timothy B]

I believe it's how professional everything feels about religion which becomes the biggest hook. There's so many followers, they can't all be wrong, right? There's a really old book written by men, it can't be wrong, right? All these big buildings, they feel so powerful and large, completely built on faith and people's cult money. There's no way that could be wrong, right?

Right?

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.

I agree. I won't lie, it kinda makes religious people seem a little creepy when they defend their faith. Because of that, I should probably try to avoid getting in these debates in the future.

You know how some people are more susceptible to addictions, ie: coffee, smoking, alcohol. I personally believe there's some who are more susceptible to simply follow without thought or doubt. (note: These are my own opinions. I am not a doctor. I'll likely also get flamed for this)


While I was growing up and firmly accepted being atheist, my best friend used to say "If I'm wrong about my faith, I just look like a fool. If I'm right, I get to go to heaven" and then he'd say "But if you're wrong, you go to hell". So as Miguel asked, yes. Hell is a strong weight against a person's decision. It certainly was for me when I was denouncing my faith.

[Khris]

Miguel, I wasn't talking about Berlin today. And I didn't say that hate against gays necessarily always stems from religion.
All I'm saying is that you can't use humanist ideals to justify violence against humans.

You have adopted a non-literal, interpretative view of the bible. That's fine. I'm merely pointing out the dilemma that comes with basing morality on interpretations of copies of translations of copies of old books. There are people who call themselves Christians today who wouldn't accept your interpretation, and who would say that you aren't a true Christian. Just like you would say that members of the Westboro Baptist Church don't follow Jesus properly and are therefore no true Christians.

Humanism recognizes this dilemma:

Humanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism).

This means that humanism is free to grow and reshape as it evolves alongside thinking humans.

Religions on the other hand are still bound to interpreting an old book, and the "revealed wisdom" therein. That's why modern theology is riddled with mental gymnastics to keep up with modern values like for instance the equality of races and genders, and of course all the amazing scientific discoveries.

Do you really think that Catholics accepted evolution because they had a sudden insight about the biblical creation story? They did it due to societal pressure. This can be observed today: in Germany, the Catholic church has massive problems; people leave the church in droves whenever some of the bigwigs makes another inane statement. Religions are dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, and they are forced to adopt more and more humanist values or they will simply die out.


Adeel:
Faith is the excuse people give for accepting something as true without a good reason. Faith isn't a virtue, faith is gullibility.
(Having "faith in humanity" is fine, that's a different kind of faith though.)


Lt. Smash:
I don't think opinions can be true or false. If something can be shown to be true or false, it's a statement. An opinion is something like "we should build colonies on Mars". People just like to put "imo" before statements, because that makes it easier to retract them later
The difference between science and religion, in a nutshell: science values doubt, while religion values faith. Science progresses by questioning itself, religion thinks it already has all the answers.

[Ryan Timothy B]

Do you really think that Catholics accepted evolution because they had a sudden insight about the biblical creation story? They did it due to societal pressure. This can be observed today: in Germany, the Catholic church has massive problems; people leave the church in droves whenever some of the bigwigs makes another inane statement. Religions are dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, and they are forced to adopt more and more humanist values or they will simply die out.

I think it's more or less that Catholics are people as well, who go to school, who learn and accept science over the strict principles they're taught. Then the things that normally weren't acceptable suddenly become acceptable as they themselves adapt new philosophies.

It's like the movie Doubt where the younger new nun has different views of what's acceptable whereas the older nun is strict and stuck on old-school ideology.

[monkey0506]

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.

Interesting use of "mostly". Except in the most rare and exceptionally uncommon cases (and even these are late stage progressions to which the following would still have applied at some point), people with mental illness still have enough lucidity to willingly choose to seek help...if they choose to do so. This was my point. Having mental illness isn't a free excuse to do whatever you want and just get away with it. The mentally ill should still be held accountable for seeking help. Not only medications, but psychotherapy, psychosocial therapy, diet, exercise, and education about their illness, their own personal triggers for that illness, and coping skills for dealing with the stresses of everyday life and those triggers -- all of these things have been proven to be essential in managing and overcoming mental illness. Mental illness is not comparable to the other cases you presented in this regard. (Granted, Alzheimer's does target the brain, but it's not a "mental illness" in the same context as bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia, schizo-affective disorder, major depressive disorder, manic depressive disorder, etc.)

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.

Actually I don't generally take a behaviorist view, because people's thoughts are what lead to their actions. Christ taught that if a man lusts after a woman (in his mind) that he is already responsible of committing adultery with her. Someone with homosexual tendencies would therefore be equally responsible of sin for fantasizing about men, watching gay porn, etc. It doesn't mean that I'm not a sinner myself (or that I haven't ever been responsible for lusting after women), but sin is sin. All men fall short of the glory of God, which is why we needed a perfect mediator to pay the price that justice demanded.

Why do we need a book to tell us to be good to others?

This exact logic could be extended to the question, "Why does government need to create laws?" People are generally good, but we are still naturally disposed to certain not-so-good things (lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride, etc.). If everyone was perfect and could always be expected to do the right thing, then not only would we have no need for government whatsoever, I will assert that we would even have no need for religion or God. The truth of the matter though is that people are simply not perfect. As human beings we need things like government to keep us in line. Some of us need a book to tell us to be good to each other (because, honestly, my intellectual superiority complex would make it so much easier to just say, "F*** YOU ALL!!!" and be done with it). This particular aspect doesn't necessarily apply to everyone (just as not everyone would go and murder someone if there was no government or law preventing it), but it does apply to some. The secular parallel of government should make this rather transparent.

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?

I've pointed out several times that just because a particular commandment was given at one point in the Bible doesn't mean that it was meant to apply globally for everyone. Putting things in their proper context makes what might seem atrocious into reasonably understandable acts. Many commandments (e.g., the Mosaic law) were explicitly revoked, and replaced by a higher law. Some commandments were given as tests, some to subject punishment. Even outside of religious texts, context can be the essential difference. This is especially true when looking at religion though, because honestly, a fair and just God isn't going to treat unequal people as equals.

As to whether something is moral because God says it is, this is an interesting matter for debate because morality itself is so loosely defined. An example that springs instantly to mind is Abraham being commanded to kill his son Isaac. From what we know, Isaac had done no great evil to deserve this punishment, but the commandment was given as a test of Abraham's faith. Because Isaac did not deserve to be slain, God provided a lamb. If the lamb had not been presented and Abraham had slain his (apparently) innocent son, would Abraham have acted morally? That's a very existential question, but from my viewpoint a perfect, loving, and just God would not have given this commandment if he was not going to provide an out. So to me, it would have been less morally correct to disobey the commandment, but that also comes from an understanding that Abraham had a close enough relationship with God to understand that it truly was a commandment being given by God.

Now, on to the original discussion. Regarding the question whether religion contradicts science or not.

Uh... Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this (I'll be off to bed soon, and I'm not going looking for it now), but I don't believe that I ever said anything about "the original discussion" involving "whether religion contradicts science". I have expressly said that I don't believe that they do contradict each other, that I believe they fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, etc., but I don't recall the original topic having been about this. Because, honestly, it's not what I wanted to debate...

...use secular law to justify killing someone.

I believe that Obama can provide that answer.

...this "religion vs science" debate that appears to be going on

Yes, let's not engage in that.

...a major difference between science and religion...

thread, wat r u doin?? thread, stahp!

Often, these debates are labelled as "fruitless" or "pointless".

I recognized that from the get-out, but isn't the point of a debate (vs. an argument) that both sides are able to share their thoughts, feelings, impressions, and ideas? To me, a debate isn't won or lost, it's just about the exchange. I'm not going to get butt-hurt that someone doesn't agree with me here, and I certainly hope that no one gets butt-hurt by my religious beliefs (although AFAIK, the only other inflammatory thing I've said other than being a creationist theist is that I believe homosexuality is a choice and a sin...in which case, if someone gets butt-hurt over the gays, the irony would actually make it worth it).

The difference between science and religion...

This made me worried.

...is that most religions state that it is a fact that there were some prophets...

I actually find this humorous, because I don't think it says what you mean. It is a fact "that there were some prophets", the question is whether these persons were actually divinely inspired. I'm sure you meant the latter, but essentially all it takes to be a prophet is to make a prophecy. Doesn't mean your prophecy is true, or that you're actually speaking on behalf of a higher power.

...it is the best to have no sex before marriage...

Wait a second, you mean to tell me that some people don't consider this an absolute and irrefutable fact?!? Hah! What silly, backwards people those must be!

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".

This is pretty fair, but I think "not influenced by religion or science" amounts to approximately zero people.

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.

Interesting. I don't really have much else to say about it, but I do find this interesting. And perhaps even agreeable.

miguel, I think (feel, etc. WARNING: SUBJECTIVITY AHEAD!!) that sometimes Khris' statements come across as inflammatory when it's not necessarily his intent. That's not to say he never says any inflammatory things, but I feel like the two of you especially are bashing heads and getting nowhere. I myself don't agree with a fair bit (most?) of what Khris has said in this thread, but that doesn't mean I'm going to hold any hard feelings toward him afterwards. Khris and I are clearly at two very different ends of the spectrum, and I think that while your heart may be in the right place, your point is being lost entirely in the heat of battle. [/entirely-blatant-subjectivity]

Three new posts while I was typing. Will post and edit if I have anything else to say.

[monkey0506]

I lied! I said I was going to edit the previous post, but upon realizing how long it was, I may as well just split this up here to avoid longcatting this page too horrifically.

cult money

To an atheist, isn't every religion a cult?

I won't lie, it kinda makes religious people seem a little creepy when they defend their faith.

Ryan, I fully expect after making a statement like this that you will never defend yourself, friends, family, or anything which you care about or believe in ever again -- for fear of being viewed as creepy no doubt. Defending religion is no different than defending anything else in which people put their faith (other people, science, etc.). If you find it creepy, it seems more likely to me that you find religion itself creepy, not its defense.

You know how some people are more susceptible to addictions, ie: coffee, smoking, alcohol. I personally believe there's some who are more susceptible to simply follow without thought or doubt.

I'm not going to flame you for this. In fact, I agree with you wholeheartedly. That doesn't mean that you can use a blanket statement to say that everyone who identifies themselves as religious has done it without thought or doubt. Thought and doubt alike have played key roles in the development of my faith. My church publicly advocates for people to gain their own testimonies and not rely on the witnesses of family or friends alone. The Book of Mormon itself advocates questioning whether or not it is false (granted, it then directs to follow the same admonition given biblically in the book of James, to ask of God, but it still poses the question itself instead of demanding blind faith).

While I was growing up and firmly accepted being atheist, my best friend used to say "If I'm wrong about my faith, I just look like a fool. If I'm right, I get to go to heaven" and then he'd say "But if you're wrong, you go to hell". So as Miguel asked, yes. Hell is a strong weight against a person's decision. It certainly was for me when I was denouncing my faith.

This is again interesting to someone who doesn't believe in the "traditional" Hell. I recall a time when I felt that same way (and even said as much), but my faith isn't about fear any more. It inspires me with hope, it drives me to question everything even more than I did before, it pushes me to become a morally better version of myself, and there is no aspect of my life which my faith has not done something to improve. Again, I'm not condemning anyone for not sharing my faith, but it's become such an integrated part of who I am, that I simply don't have this same fear that you're talking about here. It's somewhat liberating to realize this.

Religions on the other hand are still bound to interpreting an old book, and the "revealed wisdom" therein.

Interpretations of ancient texts are extremely beneficial to understanding modern society by value of the old adage that, "history repeats itself." This is true (given the non-literal context in which the saying is intended). It is true though that not everything is accounted for by "an old book" that was written well before the advent of modern technology (an almost entirely inconceivable concept at the time). Your statements here are particularly interesting to me though, because my faith isn't solely bound to ancient writings. This is the benefit of a living, modern day prophet. Most biblical prophecies were relating to the people living in that time, or about "the end of days" which hasn't exactly come about yet. It doesn't mean that we can't still find meaning in them, but in a very real sense the biblical prophets were the leaders of God's people...and just as we needed leaders in the past, we still need leaders today.

[Lt. Smash]

monkey you got my point There is nothing wrong in general about religion or science. If every person would question himself if something is right or not there wouldn't be so many (if any?) wars, murders and other cruel things.
People with faith can be really peacefully or really dangerous, depending on what they believe in and how they practice that belief. The problem really is that many don't think for themselves when doing things like killing a sinner or psychicollogically terrorizing someone for his non-belief etc. God or more general their religion tells them to behave like so, everything else - even their own opinion - often has no relevance. You can compare it to peer pressure. If you wanna be cool, you do like the other cools do, if you don't some of 'em will bully you.

Talking about Christianity now, I belief that Jesus Christ is one very impressive personality. Even though I don't agree in everything he said/did there is this special thing about this man that has changed the world (for good) over the past 2000 years. He praised charity and love at a time where noone else would have thought like that or dared to. Today there are lots of people that are like him, doing things to help other people for non-reward, something really unthinkable in the time Jesus lived. I don't believe that he is any relative of god, or sent by him (This was invented later by the emperors, which recognized that Christianity could be used for their own purposes and telling the people he is son of god, will make much more people believe in the words of a carpenter.) But I think that we, as an intelligent race, have the own power to be like Jesus and love each other without wanting a reward for everything we do.

Somewhere I read in this thread that if there would be no people believing in god, we would all kill ourselves. Actually I think that this would happen if every person would be 100% believer of some religion. I'm not sure who wrote that but I'm sure he is someone who needs a reward for everything good he does. If you really think that you get in heaven for doing good and go to hell for doing bad, then you are not a real good person. You only do good things to others because you think you will be rewarded with paradise for that. Doing something just for the sake of a reward, isn't the purpose of charity. Thinking of that, the praising of charity of Jesus Christ actually makes the belief of an after-life senseless.

[Atelier]

For me, rather antithetically, one look at the complexity of the universe makes me reject any form of organised religion. In fact, the religious explanations of why we are here are quite frankly insulting to the real beauty of it all. Just go to an observatory or read a book on evolution. Can it honestly be given justice by any of the stories written thousands of years ago, when we knew so little compared to now?

NORSE CREATION MYTH
Odin and his brothers first fashioned the earth (Midgard) from Ymir's flesh and, using his eyebrows, encircled it with a protective wall. Using Ymir's unbroken bones, they created mountains and from his teeth the rocks, boulders and stones. Using Ymir's blood, they created the sea and lakes. Using the dead giant's skull, they created the endless expanse of the sky and supported its corners with four dwarfs.

How ridiculous does this sound in retrospect? (At least it's 10x more kickass than modern day creation stories). And yet people had faith in it indistinguishable from people who hold religious faith today. What makes it any different from Christianity, Islam, Judaism? The answer of course is bog standard social influence, and which norms adapt or become extinct. Instead let's tell people that no words that man has ever written or said can truly represent the fact that such an awesome universe exists in the first place!

[Lt. Smash]

You are absolutely right Atelier. It is really arrogant to argue that one "living thing" (god) would have created galaxies, stars, planets, vegetation, animals, human, reactions, sub-atomar particles etc. And now this "god" should also interact with all our lives and minds?? Assuming we are the only planet with rational thinking beings this would be totally impossible. Now assume that there are billions of planets with beings similar to us. How could anything handle that all???
No one knows for sure what happened before the big bang but this mostly has to do with our definition of time. We think of a beginning and an ending, while this could easily be a loop or anything else without time at all.

Single humans will never understand everything of the universe. Our brain is not capable of this. So there will always be place for beliefs in super douper beings above all levels of existence and logic. If we once can describe matter (speaking of things which are influenced by gravity), presumable the average person won't understand it. They will continue to believe that god is holding these particles together or they simply don't care. That's humankind...

[monkey0506]

Lt. Smash, why would it be requisite that there be only one god? There are many polytheistic belief systems. There are even polytheistic denominations of Christianity for example. Is it more arrogant to suppose that a god could have created the universe than to suppose that human beings are the most complex creatures in the universe? (Or the multiverse for that matter?)

[Snarky]

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.

Interesting use of "mostly". Except in the most rare and exceptionally uncommon cases (and even these are late stage progressions to which the following would still have applied at some point), people with mental illness still have enough lucidity to willingly choose to seek help...if they choose to do so. This was my point. Having mental illness isn't a free excuse to do whatever you want and just get away with it. The mentally ill should still be held accountable for seeking help. Not only medications, but psychotherapy, psychosocial therapy, diet, exercise, and education about their illness, their own personal triggers for that illness, and coping skills for dealing with the stresses of everyday life and those triggers -- all of these things have been proven to be essential in managing and overcoming mental illness. Mental illness is not comparable to the other cases you presented in this regard. (Granted, Alzheimer's does target the brain, but it's not a "mental illness" in the same context as bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia, schizo-affective disorder, major depressive disorder, manic depressive disorder, etc.)

Just like Alzheimer's, we're seeing mental illness more and more as having organic causes: physical damage to, degeneration of, or disturbances within the brain. Fundamentally, in either case you're talking about holding someone accountable for actions triggered by a malfunctioning brain. There's a reason for the term "not guilty by reason of insanity."

As for whether they're responsible for not having sought help, let me suggest that very few people of sound mind would willingly and knowingly choose insanity. You present it as a choice and blame the crazies for choosing wrong, but there are many more plausible explanations:

1. Many people with incipient mental illness do not realize that they are becoming mentally ill. (This can in some cases be a symptom of their illness.) In serious cases, they may have delusions that keep them from seeking help.
2. Even if they do make efforts to seek help, they are often not properly diagnosed or treated.
3. Proper treatment/therapy can be expensive, and therefore is often not offered to or an option for people without private means.
4. Treatment may be too demanding of the patient, more than they can handle.
5. Treatment is not always effective, and even if it appears to be, serious symptoms can return unexpectedly.

So tell me again how crazy people just made a choice to go insane.

Actually I don't generally take a behaviorist view, because people's thoughts are what lead to their actions. Christ taught that if a man lusts after a woman (in his mind) that he is already responsible of committing adultery with her. Someone with homosexual tendencies would therefore be equally responsible of sin for fantasizing about men, watching gay porn, etc. It doesn't mean that I'm not a sinner myself (or that I haven't ever been responsible for lusting after women), but sin is sin. All men fall short of the glory of God, which is why we needed a perfect mediator to pay the price that justice demanded.

You said being gay is a choice, and talked about it in terms of "controlling one's actions." But when people say being gay isn't a choice, they don't mean that a person can't control whether or not they engage in homosexual activity (though they dispute whether they should feel they have a responsibility to do so). They're saying that their sexual orientation â€" which gender someone is attracted to â€" is not something they choose or can control.

So how do you disagree with that? Do you argue:

1. There's no such thing as sexual orientation; people are not more sexually attracted to people of one sex than the other.
2. There's no such thing as homosexuality; no one is more sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
3. Everyone can choose their own sexual orientation; if you want, you can decide who you're sexually attracted to and aroused by.

1 and 2 seem to be trivially false, so if you hold to 3, are you really claiming that you personally (and everyone else) have the capacity, if you so choose, to change your sexual orientation so that you're attracted to men and not by women, sexually aroused by men and not by women, and sexually satisfied by sex with men and not by sex with women? (Assuming you currently identify as heterosexual, and I seem to remember posts that would suggest you do.)

Regardless of how sexual orientation is decided (whether it's purely genetic, some random event during development, or influenced by environmental factors in early life), science, introspection and common sense would all argue that homosexuality or heterosexuality is not a choice.

[Lt. Smash]

Lt. Smash, why would it be requisite that there be only one god? There are many polytheistic belief systems. There are even polytheistic denominations of Christianity for example. Is it more arrogant to suppose that a god could have created the universe than to suppose that human beings are the most complex creatures in the universe? (Or the multiverse for that matter?)

Of course you can invent trillions of different gods for everything and anything. It may makes it more "possible" but even more absurd. There were so many chemical, physical, mathematical... reactions involved during the development of our known universe, maybe even some creatures, which need our respect and not "ghosty" gods, which were invented by the minds of some human many years ago.

I didn't say that we are the most complex creatures in the universe. Actually I think we may be at average, if not below, 'cause there are lots of bad things in our world like murder, hate, rape etc also there are so many unanswered ethnical, moral and scientific questions; I'm sure there are races who have a better understanding of the universe. I agree with you, it would be really arrogant to say anything else.

[Lt. Smash]

So how do you disagree with that? Do you argue:

1. There's no such thing as sexual orientation; people are not more sexually attracted to people of one sex than the other.
2. There's no such thing as homosexuality; no one is more sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
3. Everyone can choose their own sexual orientation; if you want, you can decide who you're sexually attracted to and aroused by.

1 and 2 seem to be trivially false, so if you hold to 3, are you really claiming that you personally (and everyone else) have the capacity, if you so choose, to change your sexual orientation so that you're attracted to men and not by women, sexually aroused by men and not by women, and sexually satisfied by sex with men and not by sex with women? (Assuming you currently identify as heterosexual, and I seem to remember posts that would suggest you do.)

Regardless of how sexual orientation is decided (whether it's purely genetic, some random event during development, or influenced by environmental factors in early life), science, introspection and common sense would all argue that homosexuality or heterosexuality is not a choice.

To back up Snarky's arguments:

If you think of "falling in love" or "having a crush" you also do not decide whom you fall in love with, or do you? Do you decide rationally that this girl or boy excites you, or does it simply happen?

[Khris]

Christ taught that if a man lusts after a woman (in his mind) that he is already responsible of committing adultery with her.

Here's a fine example of why most religions are so evil (using Christianity as an example): "Couldn't help but think something I dislike? Off to hell you go! ...what? You raped and murdered 117 women, but accepted Christ as your lord and savior on your death bed? Welcome to heaven!"

And just a general comment: if you are debating something, using an argument that is based on a premise not accepted by the other party is completely useless. To me, sin is a non-issue, an imaginary, victimless crime. From my point of view, the claim that gays are sinners is meaningless.

I'd also like you to clarify what you mean by "being gay is a choice". I think it is abundantly clear that the people on my side read this as "gay men are born as heterosexual, then consciously choose to bang men and/or cross-dress".
If you accept that gay people are born gay and you're talking about the choice whether to act on those feelings or to repress them, why didn't you say so from the get-go?

Talking about Christianity now, I belief that Jesus Christ is one very impressive personality. Even though I don't agree in everything he said/did there is this special thing about this man that has changed the world (for good) over the past 2000 years. He praised charity and love at a time where noone else would have thought like that or dared to. Today there are lots of people that are like him, doing things to help other people for non-reward, something really unthinkable in the time Jesus lived.

You are not helping. This naive, sentimental view of Jesus and Christianity is very common unfortunately. I urge you to read up on the arguments against that position.

[Snarky]

To sort of argue against myself, it occurs to me that what many people who believe homosexuality is a choice, or something that can be "cured," probably believe, is that you can't talk about "sexual orientation" as if heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same kind of thing. They might argue that heterosexuality is normal while homosexuality is a disorder, and that homosexuals are not attracted to/fall in love with people of their own sex in the same way that heterosexuals are attracted to/fall in love with people of the opposite sex.

So holding that people can be cured of or choose to overcome homosexuality would then not imply that the same holds true of heterosexuality, any more than saying that you can cure people of a nervous compulsion to eat their hair would imply that you can "cure" people of eating food the same way.

Which ultimately falls back on an idea that gay people are sick, but refusing to get better. A view that is finding less and less sympathy in society.

Edit: Haha, I didn't intend for that emoticon. I typed "(wrong)" without realizing it was a special code. 

[SinSin]

in Buddhism we accept all and do not dwell on the past, Why create negative energies by indulging in caressing your own Egos. What business is it of any of ours to argue why a person is Gay, straight, lesbian or greedy why not just accept that it is what it is..  could your thoughts not be used in other ways?? Could this not have been a thread for postivity rather than getting peoples backs up?

[Adeel]

    I had intended to not reply in this thread but here we go again. This time, some bashing rather than a  observation piece that too was written in every neutral way possible.

Adeel:
Faith is the excuse people give for accepting something as true without a good reason. Faith isn't a virtue, faith is gullibility.
(Having "faith in humanity" is fine, that's a different kind of faith though.)

    Well, maybe you haven't observed this but there are many things we accept to be true without a good reason aka Faith. One of them is: we believe that Earth and planets revolve around the sun, because we are told so. Not because, we have ACTUALLY gone to space to verify. Perhaps, it can be the other way around i.e. planets and Sun revolve around the Earth and when we observed them through telescopes we get the feel that Earth is revolving. Just a thought.

   

For me, rather antithetically, one look at the complexity of the universe makes me reject any form of organised religion. In fact, the religious explanations of why we are here are quite frankly insulting to the real beauty of it all. Just go to an observatory or read a book on evolution. Can it honestly be given justice by any of the stories written thousands of years ago, when we knew so little compared to now?

NORSE CREATION MYTH
Odin and his brothers first fashioned the earth (Midgard) from Ymir's flesh and, using his eyebrows, encircled it with a protective wall. Using Ymir's unbroken bones, they created mountains and from his teeth the rocks, boulders and stones. Using Ymir's blood, they created the sea and lakes. Using the dead giant's skull, they created the endless expanse of the sky and supported its corners with four dwarfs.

How ridiculous does this sound in retrospect? (At least it's 10x more kickass than modern day creation stories). And yet people had faith in it indistinguishable from people who hold religious faith today. What makes it any different from Christianity, Islam, Judaism? The answer of course is bog standard social influence, and which norms adapt or become extinct. Instead let's tell people that no words that man has ever written or said can truly represent the fact that such an awesome universe exists in the first place!

    Well that of Norse Myth does seem weird. Maybe if you had read some translation of The Quran, surely you wouldn't be generalizing it.

Now, on to the original discussion. Regarding the question whether religion contradicts science or not.

Uh... Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this (I'll be off to bed soon, and I'm not going looking for it now), but I don't believe that I ever said anything about "the original discussion" involving "whether religion contradicts science". I have expressly said that I don't believe that they do contradict each other, that I believe they fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, etc., but I don't recall the original topic having been about this. Because, honestly, it's not what I wanted to debate...

    Well, I said this keeping in mind the direction where the debate was going. Perhaps, this wasn't the outcome you expected but we saw that when something involved religion. There came the debate on many issues such as gays automatically.

You are absolutely right Atelier. It is really arrogant to argue that one "living thing" (god) would have created galaxies, stars, planets, vegetation, animals, human, reactions, sub-atomar particles etc. And now this "god" should also interact with all our lives and minds?? Assuming we are the only planet with rational thinking beings this would be totally impossible. Now assume that there are billions of planets with beings similar to us. How could anything handle that all???
No one knows for sure what happened before the big bang but this mostly has to do with our definition of time. We think of a beginning and an ending, while this could easily be a loop or anything else without time at all.

Single humans will never understand everything of the universe. Our brain is not capable of this. So there will always be place for beliefs in super douper beings above all levels of existence and logic. If we once can describe matter (speaking of things which are influenced by gravity), presumable the average person won't understand it. They will continue to believe that god is holding these particles together or they simply don't care. That's humankind...

    Pardon me. What arrogance? There doesn't exist a single thing which can creates itself rather than creator creating his creations. Without human, there is not a single machine. So, why simply believe that this whole universe created itself? Or maybe by believing this, you are relating that the first machine created themselves too and human is only upgrading (evolving) them.
    You answered yourself that this universe is too deep that human brain cannot understand. So, is the God's personality. Most of us perceive God to be a human but in actual God is much superior power. He cannot be imagined. But He shows his signs in his creations like any creation shows the signs of creator. If He can create the universe. So He can manage it as well. Consider Google: Larry Page created it. Initially, it was just a small search engine. Now it has become an Internet Giant. So, that's means Larry cannot manage his own company? If that were the case, Google would have been bankrupted years ago.
    Yes, particles hold each other with different forces. But these forces were already designed and created by God even before the creation of universe itself. You say that we expect God is holding every particle. Consider this example: You made a blueprint of some device in which you have defined where all the screws will fit. So, when thousands of such devices are manufactured exactly in the same design. Will you be expected to hold together all the devices? No, these devices will be held together by screws, that were created by human himself. Even after all this, you'll still be hailed as an inventor or would people credit these devices because they are holding themselves? The same goes to the universe. Once, the forces (screws) were designed and created. Then the devices (particles) were designed and manufactured in such a way so that these two would work well together. Yet, instead of crediting the original Mastermind, you say that these devices (particles) created and attached themselves.

EDIT: I saw some new replies but I don't intend to refine this one. Now, I am just going to post this, switch to some other threads, read them and enjoy my tea

[Lt. Smash]

Talking about Christianity now, I belief that Jesus Christ is one very impressive personality. Even though I don't agree in everything he said/did there is this special thing about this man that has changed the world (for good) over the past 2000 years. He praised charity and love at a time where noone else would have thought like that or dared to. Today there are lots of people that are like him, doing things to help other people for non-reward, something really unthinkable in the time Jesus lived.

You are not helping. This naive, sentimental view of Jesus and Christianity is very common unfortunately. I urge you to read up on the arguments against that position.

I was just argueing that the aspect of helping other people without getting anything for it IS a good thing. Or do you think the red cross isn't good? Religion was built around that idea in order to abuse it.
BTW no one is helping here anyone. Everyone has it's own opinion on things and wants to tell his version in a debate. I'm just kicking in to show my perspective of things and want to know what others think about it.

[Khris]

Well, maybe you haven't observed this but there are many things we accept to be true without a good reason aka Faith. One of them is: we believe that Earth and planets revolve around the sun, because we are told so. Not because, we have ACTUALLY gone to space to verify. Perhaps, it can be the other way around i.e. planets and Sun revolve around the Earth and when we observed them through telescopes we get the feel that Earth is revolving. Just a thought.

Because incidentally, that's what the Qu'ran says, right? It pretty plainly says that the earth is the center of the universe.
Funnily enough, you don't actually need to go to space to verify that that isn't true. Astronomers have figured this out centuries ago, by using basically just telescopes and math. We don't HAVE to take it on faith, we can actually study astronomy and confirm this ourselves. You are correct in so far as I do trust the scientists and books that say this, but I don't do so on a whim or because it makes me feel good, I do it because I trust the scientific method. I trust the underlying process because I know how it works and it demonstrably produces results.
Scientists can make progress because they can start their work where other people left off. But again, they don't have to take everything on faith. This is because there are standards in science, like reproducibility and peer-review, to make sure that people don't publish nonsense.

As for your other arguments, and I'm sorry to say this and I know it's arrogant: you are advocating a simplistic and naive view of the universe. What you put forward as arguments for god is old and far from convincing. It also sounds like you are a creationist, which is so far removed from reality and what we know about it that progressive religious people have abandoned this notion (because they understand why it's indefensible).

Lt. Smash:
There are some pretty big problems with the teachings of Jesus. And the thought that helping others without reward was unthinkable in the time of Jesus is pure fiction. What you say sounds like all people were completely amoral, egotistical assholes for thousands of years, until along came Jesus.

[geork]

I'd just like to defend my last post, because flame wars

Most of it was meant as satire to the idea of this topic even being relevant (as Lt. Smash says, no-one is helping anyone here), hence "lens theory" ...although I messed up on the Einstein point (my mistake, I skim read an article once) so thanks for the correction

On a serious note though (well, less silly anyway), it may be entirely possible that there are [correct] ways of looking at life, the universe and everything(TM) that human beings are simply not equipped to comprehend. Maybe yes, maybe no. I'll let that hang as the pointless point it is...

[waheela]

Why do we need a book to tell us to be good to others?

This exact logic could be extended to the question, "Why does government need to create laws?" People are generally good, but we are still naturally disposed to certain not-so-good things (lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride, etc.). If everyone was perfect and could always be expected to do the right thing, then not only would we have no need for government whatsoever, I will assert that we would even have no need for religion or God. The truth of the matter though is that people are simply not perfect. As human beings we need things like government to keep us in line. Some of us need a book to tell us to be good to each other (because, honestly, my intellectual superiority complex would make it so much easier to just say, "F*** YOU ALL!!!" and be done with it). This particular aspect doesn't necessarily apply to everyone (just as not everyone would go and murder someone if there was no government or law preventing it), but it does apply to some. The secular parallel of government should make this rather transparent.

Thanks for answering my questions, monkey!
If government fills the role of "keeping people in line", why do we need the bible? Do you, truly, need a book to tell you to be nice to people? If you were not a Mormon, would you honestly tell me to fuck off because I'm intellectually inferior to you?

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?

I've pointed out several times that just because a particular commandment was given at one point in the Bible doesn't mean that it was meant to apply globally for everyone. Putting things in their proper context makes what might seem atrocious into reasonably understandable acts. Many commandments (e.g., the Mosaic law) were explicitly revoked, and replaced by a higher law. Some commandments were given as tests, some to subject punishment. Even outside of religious texts, context can be the essential difference. This is especially true when looking at religion though, because honestly, a fair and just God isn't going to treat unequal people as equals.

As to whether something is moral because God says it is, this is an interesting matter for debate because morality itself is so loosely defined. An example that springs instantly to mind is Abraham being commanded to kill his son Isaac. From what we know, Isaac had done no great evil to deserve this punishment, but the commandment was given as a test of Abraham's faith. Because Isaac did not deserve to be slain, God provided a lamb. If the lamb had not been presented and Abraham had slain his (apparently) innocent son, would Abraham have acted morally? That's a very existential question, but from my viewpoint a perfect, loving, and just God would not have given this commandment if he was not going to provide an out. So to me, it would have been less morally correct to disobey the commandment, but that also comes from an understanding that Abraham had a close enough relationship with God to understand that it truly was a commandment being given by God.

Is slavery in any context actually good?

because honestly, a fair and just God isn't going to treat unequal people as equals

-Who, specifically, is unequal and undeserving?
-Why would God create people who are unequal?
-If God truly loved every one of us, why would he send some of us to hell, an eternity of torture, for being unequal? Does he really love us if he does?
-If a mass murderer or rapist converts on his deathbed, does he go to heaven? If so, is that truly fair and just?