Hurts little?
If we sticked to religion, we wouldn't even know half of what we know now, scientifically-speaking.
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Explain to me the cons of basing our culture off religion.
- Thread starter Surfing_Pikachu
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Hurts little?
If we sticked to religion, we wouldn't even know half of what we know now, scientifically-speaking.
Well, for one there are multiple religions and basing our culture off one or two would conflict with the beliefs of other persons.
The many beliefs of a religion would also conflict with scientific beliefs and may even slow down humanity's progress as it has done in the past.
We're fine with the moral beliefs we all possess without the need for religion.
The many beliefs of a religion would also conflict with scientific beliefs and may even slow down humanity's progress as it has done in the past.
We're fine with the moral beliefs we all possess without the need for religion.
Vermehlo_Steele
Grand Arbiter II
Hurts little?
If we sticked to religion, we wouldn't even know half of what we know now, scientifically-speaking.
LOL, good ignorance bud, ur shining wit is an example we must all follow. Only sophisticated, intelligent, enlightened atheists can reach the intellectual capacity for the nuances of science, right?
LOL, good ignorance bud, ur shining wit is an example we must all follow. Only sophisticated, intelligent, enlightened atheists can reach the intellectual capacity for the nuances of science, right?
It's true though. Thanks to religion, we had the Dark Ages. You know, when it was against the law to even be a scientist or do anything scientific and you were executed for being a heretic?
We would be so much more advanced if the Dark Ages never occurred.
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
You misinterpreted his message. He didn't even mention atheism. He only spoke about science.LOL, good ignorance bud, ur shining wit is an example we must all follow. Only sophisticated, intelligent, enlightened atheists can reach the intellectual capacity for the nuances of science, right?
He's right for the most part.
It's true though. Thanks to religion, we had the Dark Ages. You know, when it was against the law to even be a scientist or do anything scientific and you were executed for being a heretic?
We would be so much more advanced if the Dark Ages never occurred.
This is very true. However, I think it's important to point out that several ancient religions had beliefs and practices that required reading the stars, essentially giving birth to astronomy. While most, if not all, of these religions are now defunct, so to speak, they did essentially begin the practice of science.
GetOutOfBox
Original Series Fan
I have nothing but the utmost respect for those that have faith in a god(s) or similar deity, as it is one of my main beliefs that the personal opinions, beliefs and life choices (be it sexuality, religion, etc) of other people are the business of those that hold them, not me. While I like to engage in friendly debates with those whose beliefs differ from mine (only if they'd like to debate, I don't mean just asking some random person for proof that god exists), I do not believe it is my place or others to tell someone that they should/should not believe in a God(s), be attracted to their own gender, like to watch pokemon, etc. All of those and similar things do not have any impact on anyone elses life except for the believer, so there's no reason I should particularily care.
Back to the topic of religion, I'm agnostic. I do not actively go to church, I can find no faith in a God or diety that has no proof other than others faith behind it. At the same time, I can't exclusively prove that it does not exist (I can only say it likely doesn't exist), so I remain open to all possibilities.
I believe in freedom of religion, but at the same time I am extremely against the involvment of religion in politics. Those are two areas that should remain seperate from each other, mainly because politics are supposed to be based on pure logical reasoning, while religion is an area of passion and faith. One of the things I despise about the United States Government, is despite the fact that it's constitution clearly indicates that religion and government should be seperated, it's hindered by red tape related to religious groups.
Homosexual marrige is illegal in many states for no other reason than the fact that religous party's and groups of people believe it to be a sin. There is no logical reason why the government should care if two men are married, since the legal aspects of marrige are (or should be) unaffected by sexuality.
Abortion is illegal in some states simply because religious groups believe that the "soul" is present immidietly after conception, despite concrete science establishing that fetuses younger than the maximum time from conception have extremely primitive nervous systems, the brain is barely existant and at that point is just a small nerve sack. I believe that a pro-contraception attitude should be endorsed, as I think needless abortions are a sad loss of life, but if a child is conceived in a rape or is conceived by a mother who is a drug addict and will be incapable of giving her child a life other than cruelty and neglect it's my belief that abortion should be allowed.
The issue I have with religious groups and politics is largely based around the fact that many religous groups use their bible and faith as "proof" of their opinions in areas such as abortion, war, and sexuality. The bible used in churches is brought to you courtesy of King James, who rewrote it to suit his beliefs in 1611. Science is proof, science is evidence. A book written by men in a time of sciences infanc, where superstition was commonplace. It is not fit to be used as counter-evidence, nor is the opinion of the pope, etc.
Religion has historically greatly held back the pursuit of knowledge, people often contested new discovery's simply because they couldn't be possible according to the Bible (I should mention that you can substitute Qu'Ran, Torah, etc for Bible, this isn't a specific attack on Christianity). Religion has inspired some area's of science to be explored, but superstition has no place in today's world. The fact that some states are debating whether or not to teach Creationism in place of or beside Evolution is disgusting. There is no evidence to support Creationism, on the contrary, all of the evidence points against it. Again, Christians cite the bible as proof.
Basically, my opinion is that believing in religion should be respected, but at the same time believers should not force their faith on others, nor should they attempt to use it as proof in legal matters, since proving your opinion with a superstitious belief is not evidence.
P.S, if you're curious after reading the passionate response to homophobia, no I'm not homosexual, but I despise those that persecute them. Everyone should have the right to love someone, regardless of whom that person is.
Back to the topic of religion, I'm agnostic. I do not actively go to church, I can find no faith in a God or diety that has no proof other than others faith behind it. At the same time, I can't exclusively prove that it does not exist (I can only say it likely doesn't exist), so I remain open to all possibilities.
I believe in freedom of religion, but at the same time I am extremely against the involvment of religion in politics. Those are two areas that should remain seperate from each other, mainly because politics are supposed to be based on pure logical reasoning, while religion is an area of passion and faith. One of the things I despise about the United States Government, is despite the fact that it's constitution clearly indicates that religion and government should be seperated, it's hindered by red tape related to religious groups.
Homosexual marrige is illegal in many states for no other reason than the fact that religous party's and groups of people believe it to be a sin. There is no logical reason why the government should care if two men are married, since the legal aspects of marrige are (or should be) unaffected by sexuality.
Abortion is illegal in some states simply because religious groups believe that the "soul" is present immidietly after conception, despite concrete science establishing that fetuses younger than the maximum time from conception have extremely primitive nervous systems, the brain is barely existant and at that point is just a small nerve sack. I believe that a pro-contraception attitude should be endorsed, as I think needless abortions are a sad loss of life, but if a child is conceived in a rape or is conceived by a mother who is a drug addict and will be incapable of giving her child a life other than cruelty and neglect it's my belief that abortion should be allowed.
The issue I have with religious groups and politics is largely based around the fact that many religous groups use their bible and faith as "proof" of their opinions in areas such as abortion, war, and sexuality. The bible used in churches is brought to you courtesy of King James, who rewrote it to suit his beliefs in 1611. Science is proof, science is evidence. A book written by men in a time of sciences infanc, where superstition was commonplace. It is not fit to be used as counter-evidence, nor is the opinion of the pope, etc.
Religion has historically greatly held back the pursuit of knowledge, people often contested new discovery's simply because they couldn't be possible according to the Bible (I should mention that you can substitute Qu'Ran, Torah, etc for Bible, this isn't a specific attack on Christianity). Religion has inspired some area's of science to be explored, but superstition has no place in today's world. The fact that some states are debating whether or not to teach Creationism in place of or beside Evolution is disgusting. There is no evidence to support Creationism, on the contrary, all of the evidence points against it. Again, Christians cite the bible as proof.
Basically, my opinion is that believing in religion should be respected, but at the same time believers should not force their faith on others, nor should they attempt to use it as proof in legal matters, since proving your opinion with a superstitious belief is not evidence.
P.S, if you're curious after reading the passionate response to homophobia, no I'm not homosexual, but I despise those that persecute them. Everyone should have the right to love someone, regardless of whom that person is.
ShinySandshrew
†God Follower†
Yannapu, GhostAnime, Fused, GetOutOfBox: your bias is showing.
According to the History Channel's website, history.com, the Dark Ages "were an early medieval period of western European history. Specifically, the term refers to the time (476–800) when there was no Roman (or Holy Roman) emperor in the West; or, more generally, to the period between about 500 and 1000, which was marked by frequent warfare and a virtual disappearance of urban life. It is now rarely used by historians because of the value judgment it implies. Though sometimes taken to derive its meaning from the fact that little was then known about the period, the term's more usual and pejorative sense is of a period of intellectual darkness and barbarity." Nothing about religion being the cause, folks.
Furthermore, according to Ronald Numbers (a contemporary historian of science) the idea that Christianity held back science during the Dark Ages is a myth and is not supported by current historical research. (Source)
You could also take a look at this article on Wikipedia.
Next time, please make sure your accusation is supported by historical fact.
According to the History Channel's website, history.com, the Dark Ages "were an early medieval period of western European history. Specifically, the term refers to the time (476–800) when there was no Roman (or Holy Roman) emperor in the West; or, more generally, to the period between about 500 and 1000, which was marked by frequent warfare and a virtual disappearance of urban life. It is now rarely used by historians because of the value judgment it implies. Though sometimes taken to derive its meaning from the fact that little was then known about the period, the term's more usual and pejorative sense is of a period of intellectual darkness and barbarity." Nothing about religion being the cause, folks.
Furthermore, according to Ronald Numbers (a contemporary historian of science) the idea that Christianity held back science during the Dark Ages is a myth and is not supported by current historical research. (Source)
You could also take a look at this article on Wikipedia.
Next time, please make sure your accusation is supported by historical fact.
Last edited:
TheFightingPikachu
Smashing!
King James Didn't Write the Bible
(2) I have researched a great deal to write an article detailing imperfections of the KJV, but I have not seen anything that indicates he "rewrote it to suit his beliefs."
I now call skeptical textual critic Bart Ehrman to the witness stand against you:
"The King James Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus's edition, which was based on a single twelfth-century manuscript that is one of the worst of the manuscripts available to us! It's no wonder that modern translations often differ from the King James, and no wonder that some Bible-believing Christians prefer topretend there's never been a problem, since God inspired the King James Bible instead of the original Greek! (As the old saw goes, If the King James was good enough for Saint Paul, it's good enough for me.)
"Reality is never that neat, however, and in this case we need to face up to the facts. The King James was not given by God but was translated by a group of scholars in the early seventeenth century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text."
(From Misquoting Jesus, page 216)
There are imperfections in the KJV, no doubt. But the problems with the KJV were not caused by King James doing whatever he pleased with the text (there were too many scholars working on it for that to go unnoticed.) Don't go spouting unfounded ideas without any proof.
EDIT: Vermehlo Steele, you're back!! Awesome!
(1) The King James is not the only Bible used in churches today.The bible used in churches is brought to you courtesy of King James, who rewrote it to suit his beliefs in 1611.
(2) I have researched a great deal to write an article detailing imperfections of the KJV, but I have not seen anything that indicates he "rewrote it to suit his beliefs."
I now call skeptical textual critic Bart Ehrman to the witness stand against you:
"The King James Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus's edition, which was based on a single twelfth-century manuscript that is one of the worst of the manuscripts available to us! It's no wonder that modern translations often differ from the King James, and no wonder that some Bible-believing Christians prefer topretend there's never been a problem, since God inspired the King James Bible instead of the original Greek! (As the old saw goes, If the King James was good enough for Saint Paul, it's good enough for me.)
"Reality is never that neat, however, and in this case we need to face up to the facts. The King James was not given by God but was translated by a group of scholars in the early seventeenth century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text."
(From Misquoting Jesus, page 216)
There are imperfections in the KJV, no doubt. But the problems with the KJV were not caused by King James doing whatever he pleased with the text (there were too many scholars working on it for that to go unnoticed.) Don't go spouting unfounded ideas without any proof.
EDIT: Vermehlo Steele, you're back!! Awesome!
Last edited:
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
Yannapu, GhostAnime, Fused, GetOutOfBox: your bias is showing.
According to the History Channel's website, history.com, the Dark Ages "were an early medieval period of western European history. Specifically, the term refers to the time (476–800) when there was no Roman (or Holy Roman) emperor in the West; or, more generally, to the period between about 500 and 1000, which was marked by frequent warfare and a virtual disappearance of urban life. It is now rarely used by historians because of the value judgment it implies. Though sometimes taken to derive its meaning from the fact that little was then known about the period, the term's more usual and pejorative sense is of a period of intellectual darkness and barbarity." Nothing about religion being the cause, folks.
Furthermore, according to Ronald Numbers (a contemporary historian of science) the idea that Christianity held back science during the Dark Ages is a myth and is not supported by current historical research. (Source)
You could also take a look at this article on Wikipedia.
Next time, please make sure your accusation is supported by historical fact.
It is quite easy to just leave the idea that Christianity was a cause of the Dark Ages out of the equation so as not to offend Christian viewers, so I'd encourage people to look beyond the History Channel and hold onto their initial opinion that Christianity contributed the Dark Ages. There are historians like Ron Numbers who are Christian who seek to disprove this idea, and then there are other historians who still insist the Dark Ages were held back by religion. Both sides are strong and offer sources for your argument.
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
Can I get a, oh I don't know, direct quotation? In such large publications and a generic history website, you'd think it would help.ShinySandshrew said:Nothing about religion being the cause, folks.
I read the professor's lecture. From doing a tiny bit of skimming (face it.. I cannot read all of that), he seems to only downgrade some of the punishments the scientists faced.. but, it's not the extremism that was the problem. It's the fact that it was hard to push science the way we do today. They were held down regardless. The debate is no longer about whether they were or not. They clearly were by religious figures.
If it wasn't religion, it was at least an excuse by religious figures. I'm not interested in finding out if it was political or whatever, but it at the very least was a tool.
Even today, we can see religion sometimes pushes people back from learning about science (or at least taking it as an actual process of gaining knowledge). If we can see it today, of course we'd see it thousands of years ago.
Edit: Read a little bit more. He doesn't talk much about the 500-1700 period.
Also, about the wikipedia article on science.. nobody is saying science wasn't used at all in the western culture. There is a difference between "held back" and "scientific activities". Not to mention that it doesn't speak about science in a political scale. How educating the masses? Application of these things? What were the opinion of people who actually had power? What did the masses think as well? You are purposely leaving out some things.
Last edited:
GetOutOfBox
Original Series Fan
Yannapu, GhostAnime, Fused, GetOutOfBox: your bias is showing.
According to the History Channel's website, history.com, the Dark Ages "were an early medieval period of western European history. Specifically, the term refers to the time (476–800) when there was no Roman (or Holy Roman) emperor in the West; or, more generally, to the period between about 500 and 1000, which was marked by frequent warfare and a virtual disappearance of urban life. It is now rarely used by historians because of the value judgment it implies. Though sometimes taken to derive its meaning from the fact that little was then known about the period, the term's more usual and pejorative sense is of a period of intellectual darkness and barbarity." Nothing about religion being the cause, folks.
Furthermore, according to Ronald Numbers (a contemporary historian of science) the idea that Christianity held back science during the Dark Ages is a myth and is not supported by current historical research. (Source)
You could also take a look at this article on Wikipedia.
Next time, please make sure your accusation is supported by historical fact.
I don't believe I ever even mentioned the medieval period in my post. Are you sure you actually read it? It was an entirely modern look at the matter. Next time make sure your accusation is actually aimed at the correct person.
And considering your signature, your bias sure is obvious. Everyone falls victim to cognitive bias, your own opinion usually holds the most sway when making decisions or arguments, since the whole point of a debate is defending your opinion.
Last edited:
There is no evidence to support Creationism, on the contrary, all of the evidence points against it. Again, Christians cite the bible as proof.
Quick comment on this, the evidence of Creationism is the evidence of evolution. It's not so much the evidence as the presupposition that you have while analyzing the evidence. There is no need to cite the Bible as "proof".
And your abortion comment seems very rash to me. First off, the major reason for pro-life is not concern over the human soul (a Christian believes that those too young to be accountable will live in Heaven after death, so that's not an issue). The reason is those people who say that abortion is murder. This is due to the fact that at conception, a fetus obtains its own genetic code and as a result is an individual human being. And secondly, even if the issue was all about the human soul, what would the anatomy of an unborn child have to do with that?
Sabonea_Masukippa
Well-Known Member
Quick comment on this, the evidence of Creationism is the evidence of evolution. It's not so much the evidence as the presupposition that you have while analyzing the evidence. There is no need to cite the Bible as "proof".
Any one else having trouble with the meaning of this? Just me?
GetOutOfBox
Original Series Fan
Quick comment on this, the evidence of Creationism is the evidence of evolution. It's not so much the evidence as the presupposition that you have while analyzing the evidence. There is no need to cite the Bible as "proof".
And your abortion comment seems very rash to me. First off, the major reason for pro-life is not concern over the human soul (a Christian believes that those too young to be accountable will live in Heaven after death, so that's not an issue). The reason is those people who say that abortion is murder. This is due to the fact that at conception, a fetus obtains its own genetic code and as a result is an individual human being. And secondly, even if the issue was all about the human soul, what would the anatomy of an unborn child have to do with that?
Christianity proposes that humans and all other creatures were spontaneously created by a god who "did it for the lulz" (pardon the pun, but he just decides "Ok I'm bored, I'm just going to create a planet containing a diverse ecosystem to pass the time"). Don't sugar coat it. I don't see how that theory is somehow proof of another theory.
My point about abortion is that so many people (admittedly not just Christians) hotly contest it, yet they can't refute simple fact. At the stage where an abortion can legally be performed by choice (12 weeks), the fetus is not capable of feeling pain nor is it's brain sophisticated enough for it to be a conscious being. At this stage it is arguably simply an extension of the mother (philosophically speaking, medically it has a combination of it's parent's DNA therefore is biologically an independent being). It is physically incapable of thinking, or even feeling the pain of the abortion. An abortion can be performed at later stages, but only if the fetus threatens the mothers life, and in these cases a pain killer is administered.
According to your theory that it's immoral to terminate it because it has it's own genetic code, amputating an arm would be murder, since your arm contains genetic code. Possessing DNA does not equate to being a conscious being.
silver wing 22
Storm king
cons
slavery
war
colts
and being blinded from the truth
slavery
war
colts
and being blinded from the truth
Christianity proposes that humans and all other creatures were spontaneously created by a god who "did it for the lulz" (pardon the pun, but he just decides "Ok I'm bored, I'm just going to create a planet containing a diverse ecosystem to pass the time"). Don't sugar coat it. I don't see how that theory is somehow proof of another theory.
...and the most accepted theory by evolutionists for the universe's existence is the Big Bang. This was preceded by the entire universe supposedly existing as a singularity, which, by definition, is the point where all of the laws of physics break down. This is hardly more scientifically sound.
Oh, and what do you mean by that theory being proof of another theory?
My point about abortion is that so many people (admittedly not just Christians) hotly contest it, yet they can't refute simple fact. At the stage where an abortion can legally be performed by choice (12 weeks), the fetus is not capable of feeling pain nor is it's brain sophisticated enough for it to be a conscious being. At this stage it is arguably simply an extension of the mother (philosophically speaking, medically it has a combination of it's parent's DNA therefore is biologically an independent being). It is physically incapable of thinking, or even feeling the pain of the abortion. An abortion can be performed at later stages, but only if the fetus threatens the mothers life, and in these cases a pain killer is administered.
12 weeks, you say? Because, according to this article a child can experience pain at 8 weeks or earlier.
According to your theory that it's immoral to terminate it because it has it's own genetic code, amputating an arm would be murder, since your arm contains genetic code. Possessing DNA does not equate to being a conscious being.
A child has a different genetic code than the mother, it is NOT simply an extension of the mother's body. Your arm does not have a unique genetic code. Possessing unique DNA does make you an individual being.
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
Depends on how we define human being and the emphasis we put on that.
And are you seriously suggesting the Big Bang ISN'T scientifically sound? What isn't scientifically sound about the universe not starting at a certain point?
I suppose it's possible, but there's no telling if every single fetus can feel pain as short as 8 weeks (I don't know why you said shorter than 8 weeks..).
Also, responding to external stimuli isn't the same as "pain".
What does that have to do with Evolution? Nothing.jesusfreak94 said:...and the most accepted theory by evolutionists for the universe's existence is the Big Bang. This was preceded by the entire universe supposedly existing as a singularity, which, by definition, is the point where all of the laws of physics break down. This is hardly more scientifically sound.
And are you seriously suggesting the Big Bang ISN'T scientifically sound? What isn't scientifically sound about the universe not starting at a certain point?
Strange how the source they list is over.. 30 years old.12 weeks, you say? Because, according to this article a child can experience pain at 8 weeks or earlier.
I suppose it's possible, but there's no telling if every single fetus can feel pain as short as 8 weeks (I don't know why you said shorter than 8 weeks..).
Also, responding to external stimuli isn't the same as "pain".
GetOutOfBox
Original Series Fan
...and the most accepted theory by evolutionists for the universe's existence is the Big Bang. This was preceded by the entire universe supposedly existing as a singularity, which, by definition, is the point where all of the laws of physics break down. This is hardly more scientifically sound.
Oh, and what do you mean by that theory being proof of another theory?
The M-Theory nicely covers the events preceding the Big Bang, though like all science based around a time before our universe it's impossible to prove practically, theories based on mathematics and guesses based upon observation have been made. The laws of physics do not break down at this point, only the laws of classical physics. There are other areas of the umbrella term physics (such as the M-Theory) that deal with pre-big bang science, though not specifically. I'd say the Big Bang theory is a lot more credible than "a man in the sky said that there should be a planet, so a planet appeared".
12 weeks, you say? Because, according to this article a child can experience pain at 8 weeks or earlier.
Well this article (Wikipedia) states that at the first stages a fetus is not capable of feeling pain, and that it's brain has only just started to develop. The fact that you cited a website that is very, very Pro-Life (aka biased) to prove my Pro-Choice attitude wrong is pretty funny. That's like Christians arguing with Muslims, with both of them citing their respective religious texts as references ("My bible say's your Bible's wrong." "Well mine say's that your god doesn't exist")
A child has a different genetic code than the mother, it is NOT simply an extension of the mother's body. Your arm does not have a unique genetic code. Possessing unique DNA does make you an individual being.
Which is why I said philosophically. I clearly stated that yes, medically the fetus is a seperate being. My point was that whether or not it has it's own genetic code is irrelevent to whether or not it's a concious being. A bacterium has it's own genetic code, are vaccines murder? Should they be illegal?
Last edited:
Sabonea_Masukippa
Well-Known Member
...and the most accepted theory by evolutionists for the universe's existence is the Big Bang.
Technical point, but the Big Bang theory doesn't describe the reasons for the universe's existence; it explains some of the observable facts about the universe that suggests (very strongly) that at one point all matter,space and time existed at a single condensed point and that that singularity began expanding for some reason.
This was preceded by the entire universe supposedly existing as a singularity, which, by definition, is the point where all of the laws of physics break down. This is hardly more scientifically sound.
Yes. We can't yet understand what happened before the plank time. We may never be able to figure it out, or we may figure it out tomorrow. At the moment we just don't know.
Admitting you don't know something when you don't is one of the basic parts of science.
Not knowing something and pretending you do, is not.
Well this article (Wikipedia) states that at the first stages a fetus is not capable of feeling pain, and that it's brain has only just started to develop. The fact that you cited a website that is very, very Pro-Life (aka biased) to prove my Pro-Choice attitude wrong is pretty funny. That's like Christians arguing with Muslims, with both of them citing their respective religious texts as references ("My bible say's your Bible's wrong." "Well mine say's that your god doesn't exist")
Ironic that they do argue over that sort of thing, since it's supposed to be the same god (or at least derivative).
And oh, flying spaghetti monster, you brought up string theory...
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.