Is Christianity Safe?

[doc111]

Well look at it this way. Imagine a world without religion. Actually think about it, not a world where religion vanished, a world where religion never got off the ground and nobody ever conceived of a god. What do you think those people would be doing instead?

Consider all the ancient philosophers and how some of them were exiled, executed, ect for some of the things they were saying - would the contributions made by them maybe have had an earlier head start on society?

Consider all the ancient technology without the rituals and cults of the ancient world. What did the ancient Egyptians provide us with? The Aztecs, Chinese... again, some of the same questions need to be asked about technology but this one has a different side to it - with war - brought on by religious motivations - new technologies arose... Countless things were provided by warfare, to what degree each individual conflicts motivations were solely based on religion is debatable, and hard to know for sure... (but think about it, whose to say some of those millions, if not billions of people killed in warfare throughout human history wouldn't have invented these new technologies that came about during a time of warfare? Further, whose to say mankind is better off with the inventions those wars provided? Are we really better off having nuclear weapons? M16's? F22's?... you be the judge of that)

Science? This is one facet of humanity I think religion has done nothing BUT HINDER. Since the beginning, science has been proving religious texts incorrect, and since the beginning, the early believers realized this would be a very big problem. Since I believe science is our biggest weapon against anything that might come between us and the future, our survival, I see religion as the number one obstacle to that goal.

I do this sort of thing all the time. I don't know what we would do in place of religion. Throw rocks in the pond, take more walks through the park. I can't answer this. We live in a world shaped by religion. Science has had its role in shaping things as well. I long for a better world like most people do I'm sure. Philosophers long before us and long after us have and will ask these questions. We all want to know if there is more. We all want to know our purpose. If you can honestly say that these questions haven't piqued your curiosity then I admire your steadfast belief but I don't share it. I think there is more, I think we each have a purpose. Not in the religious sense but in life. If there is nothing greater than what we are doing here now, then what's the point? I mean what the hell is the point in all the shit we do? We save, we work, we raise families, and for what?

 

[PadawanBater]

I do this sort of thing all the time. I don't know what we would do in place of religion. Throw rocks in the pond, take more walks through the park. I can't answer this. We live in a world shaped by religion. Science has had its role in shaping things as well. I long for a better world like most people do I'm sure. Philosophers long before us and long after us have and will ask these questions. We all want to know if there is more. We all want to know our purpose. If you can honestly say that these questions haven't piqued your curiosity then I admire your steadfast belief but I don't share it. I think there is more, I think we each have a purpose. Not in the religious sense but in life. If there is nothing greater than what we are doing here now, then what's the point? I mean what the hell is the point in all the shit we do? We save, we work, we raise families, and for what?

Perhaps the point is... there is no point.

 

[doc111]

Perhaps the point is... there is no point.

I think there is a point though. I devoted my life to helping others. I didn't talk about it, I did it. I'm retired now, not because I'm an old man but because I was injured while trying to help someone. I have helped save a lot of lives and seen a lot of death. I have looked into the eyes of many a dying person. I can only imagine what goes throught the mind of the dying. I certainly hope I have not done all this in vain.

 

[morgentaler]

So to sum it up for you Braz, I think organized religion is dangerous because it makes people incapable of learning and understanding knowledge. There are a million examples of this on youtube. I can provide an example or two of the kind of person I'm referring to, but again, like I said, and I'm sure most of us agree, most of the believers are as harmless as a house cat... but their passive belief system is what allows the more fanatical ones to exist.

I would substitute faith for organized religion in your first statement.

You don't need to be part of organized religion to believe Meryl Dory when she says that the pertussis vaccine is bad, and children don't die from pertussis or measles. That's faith.

Hundreds, probably thousands, of products are sold in health food stores, based on no evidence they have any beneficial effect - just faith.

People elect politicians because that person has the same religion, comes from the same geographic area, went to the same school, has the same skin color or sex, and expect that person to represent their interests - all without investigating the track record of the individual. That's faith. There are Obama supporters that are just off their gourd about supporting everything he does, and they're just as irrational as the Palin supporters.

People stay with abusive partners because they have faith that the person will change, when the evidence says otherwise.

It's nice to have hope. But faith is a different beast, with poisoned fangs.

 

[Brazko]

Do anybody think this Man is Dangerous?



I think somebody said earlier it doesn't become that simple when you peel back the layers..

 

[morgentaler]

Anyone in opposition to his political beliefs surely would.

From the outside looking in, he's probably the closest living example to the idealized Republican, rather than the right wing religious nuts that have wrested control over the party.

So he gets hate from Republicans *and* Democrats. But he's one of the few Republicans I have heard Democrats say they would vote for on principal, because they consider him a rare politician of his word.

I'd certainly have issue with some of his stances politically, and think some of the ideas would be dangerous for some citizens if implemented.

But I'd agree with some too.

He's far less dangerous (in a democratic political system) than the typical politician because he bases his voting patterns on the application of the constitution, and that pattern makes him fairly predictable. So you know what you're getting if you vote him in, as opposed to flip-flop politicians.

Do anybody think this Man is Dangerous?



I think somebody said earlier it doesn't become that simple when you peel back the layers..

 

[doc111]

Anyone in opposition to his political beliefs surely would.

From the outside looking in, he's probably the closest living example to the idealized Republican, rather than the right wing religious nuts that have wrested control over the party.

So he gets hate from Republicans *and* Democrats. But he's one of the few Republicans I have heard Democrats say they would vote for on principal, because they consider him a rare politician of his word.

I'd certainly have issue with some of his stances politically, and think some of the ideas would be dangerous for some citizens if implemented.

But I'd agree with some too.

He's far less dangerous (in a democratic political system) than the typical politician because he bases his voting patterns on the application of the constitution, and that pattern makes him fairly predictable. So you know what you're getting if you vote him in, as opposed to flip-flop politicians.

Has anybody seen Bruno? The part where he is in the hotel room trying to seduce Ron Paul is fucking hilarious! Sorry, I had to inject that.

 

[doc111]

Do anybody think this Man is Dangerous?



I think somebody said earlier it doesn't become that simple when you peel back the layers..

That's absolutely correct. It depends on your point of view. Something most of us see as fairly innocuous, a sneeze, can be deadly to a person with an immune disorder. It's all about perspective.

 

[PadawanBater]

One quick question Doc, how do you feel about the way organized religion (or perhaps Morgen put it better, the faith in organized religion), with emphasis on Christianity because of our location, dumbs down the youth? A good example of this is the theory of evolution. Within the scientific community, it's fact, period. Among the public it remains a controversy specifically because of religious conflicts of interest. Over half the country doesn't accept it as true, verifiable science, when the very medicine they use, animals they keep, and even down to the names of parts of their own bodies (tail bone) show signs of descent from a common anscestor.

Do you see this as dangerous?

 

[doc111]

One quick question Doc, how do you feel about the way organized religion (or perhaps Morgen put it better, the faith in organized religion), with emphasis on Christianity because of our location, dumbs down the youth? A good example of this is the theory of evolution. Within the scientific community, it's fact, period. Among the public it remains a controversy specifically because of religious conflicts of interest. Over half the country doesn't accept it as true, verifiable science, when the very medicine they use, animals they keep, and even down to the names of parts of their own bodies (tail bone) show signs of descent from a common anscestor.

Do you see this as dangerous?

Again you are seeing things in black and white. I'm just giving you a hypothetical so dont' freak. Why couldn't god have created the earth and life to evolve? Remember the missing link still hasn't been found. Dangerous is a bit of an overstatement I think. Ignorant, perhaps.

 

[doc111]

One quick question Doc, how do you feel about the way organized religion (or perhaps Morgen put it better, the faith in organized religion), with emphasis on Christianity because of our location, dumbs down the youth? A good example of this is the theory of evolution. Within the scientific community, it's fact, period. Among the public it remains a controversy specifically because of religious conflicts of interest. Over half the country doesn't accept it as true, verifiable science, when the very medicine they use, animals they keep, and even down to the names of parts of their own bodies (tail bone) show signs of descent from a common anscestor.

Do you see this as dangerous?

Have you seen Bruno? Every time I see a picture of Ron Paul I think of that scene. Freakin' hilarious!

 

[PadawanBater]

Again you are seeing things in black and white. I'm just giving you a hypothetical so dont' freak. Why couldn't god have created the earth and life to evolve? Remember the missing link still hasn't been found. Dangerous is a bit of an overstatement I think. Ignorant, perhaps.

All that is is the god of the gaps argument. "We don't know ____, so God did it". I don't see any reason why a god couldn't have started, designed, established, created evolution... But there is simply no evidence for it. That's the thing. I couldn't, even if I wanted to, believe any conscious being is responsible for designing a system so complex, especially given it encompasses all life on Earth, and it's entirely biology based (when human beings can't even replicate DNA in the lab). I've never seen something create another living organism, there is no evidence for such a process in existence. Until I see some evidence, the possibility remains that, just a possibility.

Elaborate on how it's an overstatement if you would. Essentially what I was saying was that the beliefs are responsible for the information these people learn (or don't learn, rather), which reflects, as shown by numerous scientific studies, the way they cast their votes. Also, these same people with these same beliefs make laws and are influenced by whatever religious text they claim to follow, so when the bible says something like "homosexuality is an abomination" - how could you expect even an honest, "moral" politician to cast his vote in favor of securing his homosexual constituents civil rights?

See what I mean? In a lot of different areas, it does become that cut and dry, black and white.

Have you seen Bruno? Every time I see a picture of Ron Paul I think of that scene. Freakin' hilarious!

I still haven't seen that yet. I like SBC, he's funny as hell when he plays Ali G! lmao

 

[shnkrmn]

here's cut and dry;

God is male.
All males have a penis.
. ------------------------
. . Therefore God has a penis.
God is perfect.
[A perfect being has no useless attributes.]
God has a penis.
. ------------------------
. . Therefore God must use His penis.
God is a unique being.
[A unique being has no others like himself.]
God uses His penis.
[But not for waste or reproduction.]
. -------------------------
. . Therefore God must masturbate.


After seeing its ramifications, the notion of God's maleness is a far reaching one for Christianity; and it is, in fact, an even more dramatic discovery than it at first appears. This is because Christians don't assert that God is only sometimes perfect or only sometimes unique. They hold that these divine properties are as eternal as God Himself. This allows us to justify the additional deduction:


God must masturbate if He is perfect and male.
God is always perfect & male.
. -----------------------------------------------
. . God is always masturbating.​

http://www.cretinworld.com/father_phallus.html

 

[doc111]

All that is is the god of the gaps argument. "We don't know ____, so God did it". I don't see any reason why a god couldn't have started, designed, established, created evolution... But there is simply no evidence for it. That's the thing. I couldn't, even if I wanted to, believe any conscious being is responsible for designing a system so complex, especially given it encompasses all life on Earth, and it's entirely biology based (when human beings can't even replicate DNA in the lab). I've never seen something create another living organism, there is no evidence for such a process in existence. Until I see some evidence, the possibility remains that, just a possibility.

Elaborate on how it's an overstatement if you would. Essentially what I was saying was that the beliefs are responsible for the information these people learn (or don't learn, rather), which reflects, as shown by numerous scientific studies, the way they cast their votes. Also, these same people with these same beliefs make laws and are influenced by whatever religious text they claim to follow, so when the bible says something like "homosexuality is an abomination" - how could you expect even an honest, "moral" politician to cast his vote in favor of securing his homosexual constituents civil rights?

See what I mean? In a lot of different areas, it does become that cut and dry, black and white.



I still haven't seen that yet. I like SBC, he's funny as hell when he plays Ali G! lmao

In some areas it is black and white but not all. I'm not saying that's what happened I'm just throwing it out there. I hate the creation vs. evolution debate because both sides are so closed off to the possibility of a combination of the 2. And you keep giving examples of the ignorance of Some christians. Like it or not we are a nation which was started by religious refugees. You can't change history (although some try). We are what we are and perhaps we will evolve past our ignorance but remember that our own egoes prevent this as much as religion does. We can only reference our own experience which is unique. Nobody else in all of the world posesses the same body of knowledge and experience as I do. Same goes for you and every other person on this tiny blue orb. Our experiences shape us and guide us in our beliefs and choices we make. We won't always see eye to eye. How boring would the world be if every person marched in lockstep to the same old beat. Our uniqueness gives color and flavor to life and we should cherish it. Beliefs aside we are all rare gems in the vast cosmos. Every human who ever lived and ever will live is rare in the extreme. Even if life is abundant in the cosmos there is probably nothing quite like us. I am not sure what point I was trying to make................

 

[Brazko]

I think point well made..

and I did check out Bruno, Ron don't f@(k around do he,

 

[mindphuk]

In some areas it is black and white but not all. I'm not saying that's what happened I'm just throwing it out there. I hate the creation vs. evolution debate because both sides are so closed off to the possibility of a combination of the 2. And you keep giving examples of the ignorance of Some christians. Like it or not we are a nation which was started by religious refugees. You can't change history (although some try). We are what we are and perhaps we will evolve past our ignorance but remember that our own egoes prevent this as much as religion does. We can only reference our own experience which is unique. Nobody else in all of the world posesses the same body of knowledge and experience as I do. Same goes for you and every other person on this tiny blue orb. Our experiences shape us and guide us in our beliefs and choices we make. We won't always see eye to eye. How boring would the world be if every person marched in lockstep to the same old beat. Our uniqueness gives color and flavor to life and we should cherish it. Beliefs aside we are all rare gems in the vast cosmos. Every human who ever lived and ever will live is rare in the extreme. Even if life is abundant in the cosmos there is probably nothing quite like us. I am not sure what point I was trying to make................

You are quite incorrect. Both sides have never been closed off from a combination of the two. There are plenty of scientists that point out there really is no conflict between religion and evolution. It is the creationists that insist the two are incompatible. They soundly reject the science because it conflicts with their beliefs yet there are plenty of scientists such as Ken Miller, biologist and witness for the Plaintiff at the Dover Trial, is a Roman Catholic. He even discusses how he feels there's still plenty of room for God in science during one of his lectures.
The problem comes when the religious reject things that already have a firm basis in fact. They take this body of knowledge that you discuss and throw it in the toilet because they cannot accept a world that didn't unfold as in the pages of their book of fairy-tales.

 

[doc111]

You are quite incorrect. Both sides have never been closed off from a combination of the two. There are plenty of scientists that point out there really is no conflict between religion and evolution. It is the creationists that insist the two are incompatible. They soundly reject the science because it conflicts with their beliefs yet there are plenty of scientists such as Ken Miller, biologist and witness for the Plaintiff at the Dover Trial, is a Roman Catholic. He even discusses how he feels there's still plenty of room for God in science during one of his lectures.
The problem comes when the religious reject things that already have a firm basis in fact. They take this body of knowledge that you discuss and throw it in the toilet because they cannot accept a world that didn't unfold as in the pages of their book of fairy-tales.

I'm sure there are plenty of examples of scientists who don't accept the melding of science and creation. It's like the big bang vs. steady state debate. How do we know we aren't in a steadily expanding and contracting universe, an existence which pulsates endlessly, has no beginning and no end?

 

[doc111]

I think point well made..

and I did check out Bruno, Ron don't f@(k around do he,

He was seriously freaked out and PISSED when he found out what he was up to!

 

[mindphuk]

I'm sure there are plenty of examples of scientists who don't accept the melding of science and creation. It's like the big bang vs. steady state debate. How do we know we aren't in a steadily expanding and contracting universe, an existence which pulsates endlessly, has no beginning and no end?

There may be but you appeared to frame the disagreement as if both sides are unwavering. Scientists have strong opinions and will let you know it. However, they are not the ones married to dogma.

 

[doc111]

There may be but you appeared to frame the disagreement as if both sides are unwavering. Scientists have strong opinions and will let you know it. However, they are not the ones married to dogma.

My apologies. It wasn't my intent to make it seem as if it were an absolute for either side. I don't think there are many absolutes in the cosmos.