can you see jesus?

maori-nick · Post by **maori-nick** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:06 pm

oh bloomin heck people dont start the "DONE A MILLION TIMES BEFORE":
"Im a christian"
"Christians are stooopid"
"YOU LIE"
"JESUS IS A LIE :O :O :O"
And so the argument carries on, and then somone pulls down a projector and starts rolling film about scientific facts about how religion cant possibly be true, and in retaliation the christian pulls out a bible and starts relating quotes to the situation.

Its been done before, so we can all agree to allow others to believe in whatever the hell they want.

oddfellow · Post by **oddfellow** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:15 pm

Maori-Nick wrote: Its been done before, so we can all agree to allow others to believe in whatever the hell they want.

Wheres the fun in that?

I do see what you mean but these discussions/arguements are obviously important to people so they should be allowed.

boy_arena · Post by **boy_arena** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:20 pm

man that thread blew up!! some of the comments are mental!

bellybelle · Post by **bellybelle** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:30 pm

Mr Hyde wrote:Religions and beliefs should be strong enough to let others disagree or mock them if they want, turn the other cheek and all that-cause of so much of the worlds troubles and divisions otherwise...and any believer should just think more fool the heathens that are mocking the lord and are going to spend an eternity in hell.

If religious zealots and fundamentalists could do with this lesson, dogmatic scientists could benefit from a dose of it themselves. At this point, both prove to be two halves of the same obstinate coin. This all or nothing approach....this "Must completely align with me or else you'll go to hell/you're just plain stupid" is bullshit.

christophera · Post by **christophera** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:35 pm

Ashley wrote:
ChristopherA wrote:i spent a very large portion of my life as an agnostic

i very much believe in God now. doubt you could shake it, tbh. shame on you for wanting to try.
Lol no you don't.

Not when you post these conspiracy theroies that go against religion such as aliens and shit.

you don't seem to understand much.

if you have questions i can help you understand.

if you have weird accusations about what i know and what i believe, i'm just gonna leave it alone.

christophera · Post by **christophera** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:40 pm

if you paid attention at all, you'd notice that the aliens all believe in god

they also like to come here to earth and claim to be god and start religions

there's a lot of races of them and they are all up to different shit. earth is a zoo and they're not sposed to interact with us, but some do anyway.

some of them think of us the way we think of cattle or swine. as lesser consciousness that is only good for food.
others think we're all brothers in god and they care about us. you might consider them to be the vegans.

pk · Post by pk » Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:51 pm

wooda916 · Post by **wooda916** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:52 pm

bellybelle wrote:If religious zealots and fundamentalists could do with this lesson, dogmatic scientists could benefit from a dose of it themselves. At this point, both prove to be two halves of the same obstinate coin. This all or nothing approach....this "Must completely align with me or else you'll go to hell/you're just plain stupid" is bullshit.

not really though.

and "dogmatic scientists", bit of an oxymoron there, no?

bellybelle · Post by **bellybelle** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:00 pm

wooda916 wrote:
bellybelle wrote:If religious zealots and fundamentalists could do with this lesson, dogmatic scientists could benefit from a dose of it themselves. At this point, both prove to be two halves of the same obstinate coin. This all or nothing approach....this "Must completely align with me or else you'll go to hell/you're just plain stupid" is bullshit.
not really though.

and "dogmatic scientists", bit of an oxymoron there, no?

oh yeah really. I've had the same argument with religious fundamentalists as I have had with people who are in a similar cult with respect to Science. Both insist they are right. Both insist if you don't believe what they're pushing, then you're obviously in the wrong. One has a penalty of hell for disbelief and one has a penalty of being obscenely stupid. And neither one can provide all the answers so I can't ever understand what gives one over the other more "rightness".

As for dogmatic scientist being an oxymoron, no....

Dogmatic, according to Merriam-Webster, means "characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts". As scientists tend to build upon theories (yes I understand the use but until they change the word from "theory" to "fact" I think we should pay closer attention to the language used), they are doing the same thing as people who swear that an image of the Virgin Mary has healed them of their ills and go out and preach the gospel. And you don't have to be dogmatic if you believe Science will provide most of the answers as much as you don't have to be a Fundamentalist to believe in God/Deity. There is no reason for that.

Flexibility is key and the two do not have to be mutually exclusive. Its only when the religious and scientific Fundamentalists proclaim they alone hold the keys/explanations to all of life that there is a problem. If anything, its just used as another bracket of elitism and justification for dismissal of people who don't ascribe to the same belief system as your own. (Universal)

bellybelle · Post by **bellybelle** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:21 pm

Mr Hyde wrote: Big Difference is- no war (that I know of) has ever been started over differing scientific principles, scientists wouldn't get upset if a dogs arse looked like a microscope, it doesn't divide people in the same way that religion does.

But Science is based on theory which is then proven by fact...new theories emerge all of the time but they stay just theories until proven (i.e. big bang)- once scientists find how facts prove a theory then scientific knowledge advances. Un-proven theories change but facts do not. Science is what allows us to fly to space, cure diseases etc- not faith. Religion is completely un-proveable and subjective and so is always going to cause divisions.

the only benefit then that Science has that Religion does not is lack of longevity. But....you cannot say that the advent of Science has not caused trouble either. Several important people were put to death for their belief in it.

The problem here is that Scientists are so loathe to admit they have something in common with religious zealots that they can't see just how similar their approach is. I mean, that is like the argument over the current US predicament when comparing it to the UK. Sure the US is overextended at the moment.....but the UK was as well. To me, there is no difference.

Religion is not completely unprovable... if that were true, there wouldn't be so many Scientists and Doctors who believe in God, even with the benefit of such a rich Scientific background. Ask Doctors who encounter myriad biological dilemmas that should be fixed by a theory or fact and they cannot tell you why it didn't work. Thats the thing. Science is *not* infallible. Neither is religion.

So how is it that Scientists will still approach it this way and dismiss non-believers just as easily as someone who believes in the power of prayer? Thats the beauty of subjective truth. Because no matter what, it just has to make sense to the individual. And no one should be given shit for what makes sense to them if it works and causes no harm to anyone.

Coppola · Post by **Coppola** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:27 pm

ChristopherA wrote:oh dear the world is in a sorry state

Wake up, people! It’s the 21st Century — time to leave superstition behind! Science has completely disproved religion and anyone living today who believes that there is a god or that Jesus was a deity who “died for your sins” (however the hell that’s supposed to work) — anyone believing in any of this crap is a moron through and through!

ChristopherA wrote:because it was an attack on religion by some smug atheist

CONTRADICTION
unless you were just quoting in which case i am a tit.

bellybelle · Post by **bellybelle** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:33 pm

Mr Hyde wrote:"Several people put to death over their belief in science"......well, that proves the point I'm making, it was most likely religious fundamentalists that put them to death...I don't think things have ever happened the other way around. Literall millions must have died over differing unprovable religious beliefs.

And I would disagree- religion is completely un provable, almost by definition. Even Jesus was said to be tested by the devil to jump off a cliff and have God save him and wouldnt do it as it said you cant test God to prove himself.

quite hilariously, you just proved what I was talking about. It doesn't work for you. That's fine. Yet, even though you admit that Science does not have all the answers, you're still ready to dismiss religious interpretations. Why?

edited to add: Keep in mind that the Judeo-Christian interpretation is not the only religion out there. That there are numerous faiths to choose from and numerous avenues to travel.

bellybelle · Post by **bellybelle** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:40 pm

Mr Hyde wrote:Anyway, I'm not getting into any more of this, its proving my point at how worked up people get by anyone questioning religion and just stating my opinion that that is a bad thing.

question the validity of Science and you'll get the same response.

wooda916 · Post by **wooda916** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:43 pm

bellybelle wrote:
wooda916 wrote:
bellybelle wrote:If religious zealots and fundamentalists could do with this lesson, dogmatic scientists could benefit from a dose of it themselves. At this point, both prove to be two halves of the same obstinate coin. This all or nothing approach....this "Must completely align with me or else you'll go to hell/you're just plain stupid" is bullshit.
not really though.

and "dogmatic scientists", bit of an oxymoron there, no?
oh yeah really. I've had the same argument with religious fundamentalists as I have had with people who are in a similar *cult with respect to Science. Both insist they are right. Both insist if you don't believe what they're pushing, then you're obviously in the wrong. One has a penalty of hell for disbelief and one has a penalty of being obscenely stupid. **And neither one can provide all the answers so I can't ever understand what gives one over the other more "rightness".

As for dogmatic scientist being an oxymoron, no....

Dogmatic, according to Merriam-Webster, means "characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts". As scientists tend to build upon theories (yes I understand the use but until they change the word from "theory" to "fact" I think we should pay closer attention to the language used), they are doing the same thing as people who swear that an image of the Virgin Mary has healed them of their ills and go out and preach the gospel. And you don't have to be dogmatic if you believe Science will provide most of the answers as much as you don't have to be a Fundamentalist to believe in God/Deity. There is no reason for that.

Flexibility is key and the*** two do not have to be mutually exclusive. Its only when the religious and scientific Fundamentalists proclaim they alone hold the keys/explanations to all of life that there is a problem. If anything, its just used as another bracket of elitism and justification for dismissal of people who don't ascribe to the same belief system as your own. (Universal)

* cult? lol, sorry but referring to science as a cult?

** science has the vital ingredient of evidence based theory, not sans-evidence/pseudo-evidence based faith. A (good) scientist / atheist / human should always leave the possibility of anything open, but should base thier current logic, theory and beliefs on evidence and evidence alone. If someone gave me any solid evidence that there was any form of deity or there was such a thing as reincarnation etc etc. then, naturally, i would believe it as there would now be proof.

I have no problem with people believing in what they want to believe, no problem whatsoever. i do have a problem with the blind indoctrination and scaremongering of children by parents into non fact/evidence based faith, and non segregation af religion and state, but that is a different discussion.

*** imo, the two do have to be mutually exclusive, as science is, by definition, evidence based and there is no evidence for a deity. im not saying you cant believe in god if you are a scientist, of course you can, but you cant include these beliefs in your work.

but you know, this is all moot really as noway can this discussion go anywhere, thats the thing with faith, is very hard, if not impossible, to argue with.
people can believe what the fuck they want at the end of the day, as long as it doesn't negativity effect anyone else, i dont give a shit...

edit: oh and i stand corrected on the oxymoron if that is the case..

wooda916 · Post by **wooda916** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:46 pm

bellybelle wrote:
Mr Hyde wrote:Anyway, I'm not getting into any more of this, its proving my point at how worked up people get by anyone questioning religion and just stating my opinion that that is a bad thing.
question the validity of Science and you'll get the same response.

dont be ridiculous...

can you see jesus?

Who is online