Pakistan wants Facebook CEO Zuckerberg dead
- Thread starter THEV1LL4N
- Start date
BAM! You just destroyed your own argument. Here's why.
The scientific world, as time goes on, and they gather more evidence using the latest technology, are able to admit where they've been wrong in the past. They can say "Well, we used to think [X], but now we know it's [Y]".
Religion on the other hand, still believes the exact same shit some acid-tripping asshat wrote in a book thousands of years ago.
Science is about constantly gathering new evidence to support principles and theories. Sometimes the latest evidence proves old theories wrong, and so we create new theories based upon the new evidence. These days, our technology is advanced and reliable enough that we can largely take all new theories as fact. Evidence and scientific feedback can be gathered from the greatest minds in the worlds instantly via the internet.
Religion, on the other hand, is largely about ignoring all valid evidence and holding on to outdated fairy stories and morals that have little-to-no relevance in a modern society. When that shit leads the denial of human rights, like not allowing gay folks to get married for example, you understand why we RATIONAL people are disgusted with it. And that's before we even get into the fact that the reasons for the vast majority of wars in history can be boiled down to "Our religion is right and yours is wrong so we're going to invade you, kill you and take your land".
The scientific world, as time goes on, and they gather more evidence using the latest technology, are able to admit where they've been wrong in the past. They can say "Well, we used to think [X], but now we know it's [Y]".
Religion on the other hand, still believes the exact same shit some acid-tripping asshat wrote in a book thousands of years ago.
Science is about constantly gathering new evidence to support principles and theories. Sometimes the latest evidence proves old theories wrong, and so we create new theories based upon the new evidence. These days, our technology is advanced and reliable enough that we can largely take all new theories as fact. Evidence and scientific feedback can be gathered from the greatest minds in the worlds instantly via the internet.
Religion, on the other hand, is largely about ignoring all valid evidence and holding on to outdated fairy stories and morals that have little-to-no relevance in a modern society. When that shit leads the denial of human rights, like not allowing gay folks to get married for example, you understand why we RATIONAL people are disgusted with it. And that's before we even get into the fact that the reasons for the vast majority of wars in history can be boiled down to "Our religion is right and yours is wrong so we're going to invade you, kill you and take your land".
Right, but not every religious person believes in Noah's Ark and the shit. Some realize that they were created by man for reasons unknown. Some say to "bullshit people" and others say, myself included, that it was used to illustrate a point, perhaps pass a moral value through symbolism. Many great novels in the modern era do the same as well.
So I guess the best way to put it is "stupid people that believe these stories to be true and then take it to an extreme level by saying 'it will happen again' or 'God will do this to us now what he did to people back then' and ruin it for the rest of the believers."
The religious ideas can't evolve. So those that still accept it all literally are living in an ancient time. But to those that have moved beyond the literalness of it all can still be rational in thought and use religion at the same time.
It just seems you're stereotyping all believers based on bad experiences or reading about the extremists. The ones that used religion for evil and for getting things their way by controlling people. Today, there are plenty of believers that really don't fuck others over with religion or impose it on others with a gun to their head. I really don't see anything wrong with that.
I think the direction we're heading with this is "can religion and science" coexist. That's another great debate that no one really has an answer to. But if we're all about "being rational" in our actions today, what is rational about abandoning religion? We have examples of it doing evil. All we need to do is read a history book. We also have examples of it doing good. We often don't read about this aspect of the effects of religion because people don't go around flaunting it. If they do (Jehovah's Witnesses coming to your door to 'share the love of Christ' or whatever) then they too get a bad name.
So it seems lose-lose for believers. They can't share their opinions and at the same time get shat upon by non-believers. Maybe that's why the extremists come out and do what they do.
So I guess the best way to put it is "stupid people that believe these stories to be true and then take it to an extreme level by saying 'it will happen again' or 'God will do this to us now what he did to people back then' and ruin it for the rest of the believers."
The religious ideas can't evolve. So those that still accept it all literally are living in an ancient time. But to those that have moved beyond the literalness of it all can still be rational in thought and use religion at the same time.
It just seems you're stereotyping all believers based on bad experiences or reading about the extremists. The ones that used religion for evil and for getting things their way by controlling people. Today, there are plenty of believers that really don't fuck others over with religion or impose it on others with a gun to their head. I really don't see anything wrong with that.
I think the direction we're heading with this is "can religion and science" coexist. That's another great debate that no one really has an answer to. But if we're all about "being rational" in our actions today, what is rational about abandoning religion? We have examples of it doing evil. All we need to do is read a history book. We also have examples of it doing good. We often don't read about this aspect of the effects of religion because people don't go around flaunting it. If they do (Jehovah's Witnesses coming to your door to 'share the love of Christ' or whatever) then they too get a bad name.
So it seems lose-lose for believers. They can't share their opinions and at the same time get shat upon by non-believers. Maybe that's why the extremists come out and do what they do.
I fail to see the logic. If I would get hurt by the same words that I utter, why is it still wrong? Maybe I like to be hurt.
The wrong, grave assumption of the fucking year that you are making here is that being religious is wrong, or having religion be the core of who you are is wrong. No one has the authority to make that judgment.
My point is that religion can be in the same category of social identity as race and sexual preference because it all depends on what the person values. Choice does not matter. This is clearly evident when people are willing to die for their religious beliefs. Whether that is irrational or not is beside the point. The point is, just because you have a choice to choose religion or not doesn't make the reality of choosing the religion as part of your social identity any less real.
The wrong, grave assumption of the fucking year that you are making here is that being religious is wrong, or having religion be the core of who you are is wrong. No one has the authority to make that judgment.
My point is that religion can be in the same category of social identity as race and sexual preference because it all depends on what the person values. Choice does not matter. This is clearly evident when people are willing to die for their religious beliefs. Whether that is irrational or not is beside the point. The point is, just because you have a choice to choose religion or not doesn't make the reality of choosing the religion as part of your social identity any less real.
Measured by rationality its delusional to believe in god. Its totally ridiculous to believe some prophet walked this planet earth and came back from the dead. That doesnt mean that these people are generally stupid. It just means in this specific point, they are totally wrong (by the same standards you judge everything else by). Thats why its perfectly fine to voice criticism in a discussion or something about their point of view. Its not okay to walk straight up to that person and tell him hes a fucking idiot.
Its in the same category when it comes to the question if something is part of your social identity or not, yes. I didnt deny that. What im arguing is, that its not in the same category, if you ask the question: Should you stay away from criticising someone for his point of view?
It seems like some of you claim its wrong to talk negatively about god and religion because it might be part of someones social identity or even the core of who they are. I dont agree with that at all.
Its in the same category when it comes to the question if something is part of your social identity or not, yes. I didnt deny that. What im arguing is, that its not in the same category, if you ask the question: Should you stay away from criticising someone for his point of view?
It seems like some of you claim its wrong to talk negatively about god and religion because it might be part of someones social identity or even the core of who they are. I dont agree with that at all.
If you think the world is perfect and answers to situations like this are "perfect" then I gotta disagree. There are many complications that arise when you take a firm stand on one of these issues. There are unanswered questions on both sides. Until one side can combat theory with fact...proof..something tangible, then there will be no clear-cut answer. Since science and religion are both theories, we'll just rebuttal with theories, old or new.
Because religion has proven time and time again that they rely on tangible evidence to prove their point, right?
Oh, wait...
Religion and science can coexist very well. As long as religion keeps it's nose out of anything that can be scientifcally studied. As long as religion restrains itself to the spiritual realm, it's all peachy on the "science vs. religion" front.
Science is a method of observation, deduction, theory, experiment and conclusion. A method to better understand all the natural phenomenea that occur in our world. A method based on physical, experiencable evidence.
Religion is nothing more than hot air. Literally. If I spent the next 4 days typing up a total bullshit story about how the universe was created by a breathmint, there is absolutely nothing that gives the established religions more validity than my gibberish.
That's the difference between religion and science that makes the "religion vs. science" idea actually irrelevant. Under no circumstance should a unfounded story ever take precedence over an actual way to document and explain "things".
I've said this before and i'll say it again. One of the conflict points is evolution, right? Creationists say "it's nonsense!". But the evolutionary theory is science in it's purest form. It's a theory on it's midway point, documented enough to be highly plausible/likely but not enough to know every detail.
So the creationists say "bullshit, this idea is flawed". But almost everything that is part of our modern world, every appliance, every invention, has it's roots in the scientific method as we know it today. Even if those inventions were done way before the scientific method was meticulously laid out, it used the same principles.
So if you're gonna question the ideas science comes up with in regards to the birth of the universe for example or the creation of humankind, why not question the way your mobile phone works? Or your tv? Or a ship's diesel plant?
I mean, fuck transistors and circuit boards, right? It's the magic power of God that makes it work.
And THAT is why religion vs. science is a non-issue topic. There is no versus. There is no contest.
Oh, wait...
Religion and science can coexist very well. As long as religion keeps it's nose out of anything that can be scientifcally studied. As long as religion restrains itself to the spiritual realm, it's all peachy on the "science vs. religion" front.
Science is a method of observation, deduction, theory, experiment and conclusion. A method to better understand all the natural phenomenea that occur in our world. A method based on physical, experiencable evidence.
Religion is nothing more than hot air. Literally. If I spent the next 4 days typing up a total bullshit story about how the universe was created by a breathmint, there is absolutely nothing that gives the established religions more validity than my gibberish.
That's the difference between religion and science that makes the "religion vs. science" idea actually irrelevant. Under no circumstance should a unfounded story ever take precedence over an actual way to document and explain "things".
I've said this before and i'll say it again. One of the conflict points is evolution, right? Creationists say "it's nonsense!". But the evolutionary theory is science in it's purest form. It's a theory on it's midway point, documented enough to be highly plausible/likely but not enough to know every detail.
So the creationists say "bullshit, this idea is flawed". But almost everything that is part of our modern world, every appliance, every invention, has it's roots in the scientific method as we know it today. Even if those inventions were done way before the scientific method was meticulously laid out, it used the same principles.
So if you're gonna question the ideas science comes up with in regards to the birth of the universe for example or the creation of humankind, why not question the way your mobile phone works? Or your tv? Or a ship's diesel plant?
I mean, fuck transistors and circuit boards, right? It's the magic power of God that makes it work.
And THAT is why religion vs. science is a non-issue topic. There is no versus. There is no contest.
No, I don't.
Being passionate about something does not make it a religion. And even if it did, my religion would be Music.
Religions have agreed moral codes, supernatural events, and devotional rituals generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.
I don't abide by anyone's moral code but my own (including the law), and I certainly do not worship or follow any sort of ritual in regards to anything.
Something defined as the lack of a faith, cannot itself BE a faith. That's like saying "bald" is a style of hair.
Being passionate about something does not make it a religion. And even if it did, my religion would be Music.
Religions have agreed moral codes, supernatural events, and devotional rituals generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.
I don't abide by anyone's moral code but my own (including the law), and I certainly do not worship or follow any sort of ritual in regards to anything.
Something defined as the lack of a faith, cannot itself BE a faith. That's like saying "bald" is a style of hair.
If you must truly know I use gps so I'm never off by sea miles.
I must first apologize because what I said was definitely not detailed enough. It was mainly a comment for me and my view on religion and the people who follow religion, it was not meant to be taken as a general statement for atheism and it being or not being a belief. My explanation for this is simple. Religious people annoy me because of their constant shove of their beliefs upon others. Casey annoys me because of his constant shove of his beliefs or lack thereof upon others. Continue on
By the way...Vin Diesel is living proof that bald is a style of hair
I must first apologize because what I said was definitely not detailed enough. It was mainly a comment for me and my view on religion and the people who follow religion, it was not meant to be taken as a general statement for atheism and it being or not being a belief. My explanation for this is simple. Religious people annoy me because of their constant shove of their beliefs upon others. Casey annoys me because of his constant shove of his beliefs or lack thereof upon others. Continue on
By the way...Vin Diesel is living proof that bald is a style of hair
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.