[cwes99_03]

I didn't combat it because it has nothing to do with the thread. As you insist, the thing that you said wrongly was that

Could I just point out that the old testament (ie the NON christian bit) is what contains infanticide et al.
So ha. I laugh at you eternally.

To say it contains infanticide, can be understood, quite easily, that the OT allows for infanticide, or even it approves of infanticide. The killing of children is not a teaching or a practice in the OT. Instead it is a practice of people who were destroyed because of their wickedness, and that is contained in the OT. You were wrong in that you did not clearly state the truth, and a person who was a christian would certainly want to make that clarification since the OT and the NT are both used by christians, and they are both considered to be holy texts, as is evidenced by Jesus' use and the apostle's use of them repeatedly in their letters and teachings.

Now that being said, don't. Don't continue in this thread, unless you wish to talk about the topic science or religion. Don't continue in this thread if you think it is a moot point. Don't continue in this thread because before you came along it had been dead for over a year and there are several other threads already discussing it on Hypography.

[catholiboy]

JESUS.
I don't mean to sound annoying, BUT IT WAS NOT ME WHO POSTED ALL THE RUBBISH ABOUT INFANTICIDE AND HITLER.
GET YOUR GODDAMN FACTS RIGHT.
I only answered the thread because the issue remained unresolved.

[InfiniteNow]

No need for yelling, catholiboy. Your points will be better served by offering them with a cool head.


Cheers.

[catholiboy]

point taken.

[catholiboy]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

To say it contains infanticide, can be understood, quite easily, that the OT allows for infanticide, or even it approves of infanticide. The killing of children is not a teaching or a practice in the OT. Instead it is a practice of people who were destroyed because of their wickedness, and that is contained in the OT.

And where did I state anything to the contrary? I only said the OT contained infanticide et al.

[simay77]

How can religion, being a creation of man, explain who or how or why we are here? Science, as we all know, is the pursuit of truth. Therefore, it is the ONLY way to understand our origins. Religion came about in a time when we didn't understand the motion of the planets or the 'rising' of the sun. Science shines a light on the ingorance that is glorified in religion.
**THE GOD DELUSION by Richard Dawkins**

[charles brough]

Originally Posted by NORMANBOND007

Is Science the answer to how we are here and does it tell us why we are here? or Could it be that Religion is the answer of how and why are we here?

It is the obligation of the social sciences to provide the data that social theorists can use to figure out just what religion is, why we have it, and how long have we had it.

Unfortunately, social theorists have failed miserably to do that. We are lamely told that we are "hard wired" for religion and that it provides "emotional and comforting" support. What a lame, totally inadequate “explanation”!!

The fact is that social science theorists are afraid to deal objectively with religion for fear of offending the faithful. Myself, I am an atheist and one who has no residence address so I am not afraid of anyone! All anyone needs to do is take a good look at the several centuries of social science data and a little evolution-thinking and here is the answer:

“Religion” is any world-view and way of thinking believed by a mass of people who govern a territorial part of the globe. Other such belief systems are “cults”, “faiths,” superstitions, etc.

The reason for religion is that we evolved through millions of years of evolution as hunting-gathering group social beings---that is, we are used to living in some forty-people sized groups! So, how did we manage to crowd together and live in such large societies as we now do? You guessed it! We evolved language and used it to form religions capable of bonding us into ever larger groups. That is all religions are for, but without their ability to bond us together so we don't feel crowed and can cooperate with each other en mass, civilization would be impossible.

How do religions evolve to fill such a role? Well, if you look at all the big and successful religions, you find that they all answer four very important questions which we all have: what is our common origin, what are our common goal(s), how are we to achieve them (the moral system) and what stands in our way?

The old religions always used "spirits" in their answers; and even though there are no such things, the very bond believing them created served to bind people together and build productive societies.

We can do even better now, however!

Charles, HOME PAGE

[charles brough]

Originally Posted by NORMANBOND007

Is Science the answer to how we are here and does it tell us why we are here? or Could it be that Religion is the answer of how and why are we here?

That is a good subject to bring up! Get ready for an extended answer!

The function of science is to increase the accuracy of our picture of ourselves and our universe. It is not to set goals, create moral codes, and run society like religions do. The last of many attempts to make science a religion was that of Aguste Compte about a century and a half ago. Since then, the whole thrust has been to reconcile religion and science.

Unfortunately, that is impossible. The whole practicalness of science has been that it has enabled us to get a more accurate picture of reality than the old religions by exploring NATURAL cause and effect. To "reconcile" science with religion would be to take us back a good 500 years. So the scientists just pretended to reconcile the two. They did this by compromising both. They turned the "inspired word of God" into "liberal Christianity" in which the believers only pretend they believe the so-called "miracles" in the Bible. Then, they also compromised science---the social sciences. It was a hard trick to do that without anyone noticing, but they were very successful. This may account for the social sciences being at the bottom of the ladder of academic prestigue!

charles, HOME PAGE