[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by gareth

It's quite interesting to see scientists getting emotive about how valueless religion is. The title of this thread is religion vs. religion, yet it has now degenerated into a science vs. religion thread (that old chestnut).

Who said I was a scientist?

Originally Posted by gareth

It's almost as if science has become a religion of sorts for some people (they seem to get uncomfortable and feel threatened when anyone suggests that perhaps science cannot answer all the big questions, and then they defend science with an almost religious zeal).

Oh, please. Stop equivocating.

Originally Posted by gareth

It has become very fashionable to denounce belief in God.

Thank Thor for that. I can only hope the trend continues. I think it has something to do with with people getting smarter.

Originally Posted by gareth

If you can provide evidence (or perhaps even a compelling argument of your own intelligent design*) that proves belief in God is valueless in terms of personal ethics, then please come up with it, as I enjoy having my preconceptions legitimately challenged.

Your belief may provide significant value to you. I don't challenge that. The thing is, your "belief" has zero to do with reality.


Do you believe in the Easter Bunny, too? What about Apollo, or Zeus? Unicorns, perhcance?

[gareth]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

This couldn't be farther from the truth. I suggest that you are simply not familair with the vast swaths of scientific evidence accounting for altruism and benevolence. If you don't believe me, I'd be happy to come back and post mountains of citations which would quickly demolish your claim.

You seem to be picking and choosing data, ignoring that which runs counter to your preconceptions and only looking at that which reinforces it.

Further, if you'd like me to show you just how non-altruistic and how uncharitable religions really are, I'd be glad to start citing examples, both from scripture and from real life accounts. Hell, I'll even let you choose which religion I have to work from. It won't be hard.


Pretending the evidence is not there does not make it go away. Your position is not only inaccurate and false, but untenable.

As I understand it, the rules of this forum are that you have to prove your claims or be suspended. In your case, the claim was a very bold and slef-important one which you now have to back up:

"Hell, I'll even let you choose which religion I have to work from. It won't be hard."


I seem to remember Buffy commenting on how pride comes before a fall.

I said "OK then - Zoroastrism (the first monothesitic religion)" You have provided no response. Come on, "it won't be hard".

I'm sure if you trawl the internet for long enough you can come up with something, after all, God is with those who steadfastly persevere." (Qur'an 2:249)

If you can't back up your bold assertions, then I suggest you suspend yourself or give back some of your hard-earned medals.

For the record, I do believe in Unicorns: The Window in the Garden Wall--A C.S. Lewis Blog: The Late Passenger

[InfiniteNow]

I was countering your claim that religion speaks more to altruism and benevolence than science ever could. Now, you're going to assume that you've won some battle because you've chosen a religion not practiced by any significant numbers to support your point?


Well, since there are like 3 people who actually practice Zoroastrism, it may take me somewhat longer to find acts which are counter to altruism and benevolence, but rest assured, they most certainly exist.

I'll see what I can find.

[gareth]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I was countering your claim that religion speaks more to altruism and benevolence than science ever could. Now, you're going to assume that you've won some battle because you've chosen a religion not practiced by any significant numbers to support your point?


Well, since there are like 3 people who actually practice Zoroastrism, it may take me somewhat longer to find acts which are counter to altruism and benevolence, but rest assured, they most certainly exist.

I'll see what I can find.

Don't stay up too late!

As the first monothesitic religion, I think its a significant example of a religion, which is why I chose it. The fact that only 3 people follow it is neither here nor there. (we are after all talking about religion, not people).

I don't actually know much about Zoroastrism either. For all I know they might worship the sun

[InfiniteNow]

Okay. Here you go. Straight out of their scripture:

"Grehma the opponent of the faith and his wicked followers who harass the messenger of Ahura Mazda's holy words will go to the abode of the Worst Thought. Zarathushtra seeks to know how will he rout wickedness by the holy words of Mazda's ordinance. With these sacred formulas on their tongues, he says, he and his disciples will convert the wicked to their Lord. The words of the wicked are also called Manthras, and the prophet exhorts his hearers not to listen to them, because they bring destruction and death to the settlements of the faithful."

Yeah... sounds real altruistic:

"Zoroastrianism is essentially militant. It stirs human hearts to repugnance towards evil; it spurs man to fight it with all his being, body, mind, and spirit. Not to resist evil with offensive and defensive warfare against it is either to be callous or cowardly, or both in one's person; it is to fail in one's duty to mankind and be false to the redemptive task assigned by Ahura Mazda to man. Evil is the common enemy of Ahura Mazda and man, and man is engaged in fighting as an ally of the godhead. In his fight against evil, he is a co-worker and a fellow-combatant with Ahura Mazda. Men of all times and all places have to fight individually and collectively for the mighty cause."

And who gets to decide what they want to call "evil" and "wicked" that week? Curious, really.



However, it's only been 3 minutes since my last post. I wonder just how much I could push this into your face if I wanted to waste even more time showing how these people are fools deluded like the rest.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

And who gets to decide what they want to call "evil" and "wicked" that week? Curious, really.

*Sigh* That's really the crux of your argument, isn't it? Is what they call 'evil' and 'wicked' correct or incorrect? Without knowing that info, the benevolence of that passage can go either way. You expect people to assume that evil is a matter of convenience. But what about you? Do you find it inconceivable to fight against things which you think are bad? Say like misinformation, propaganda, or genocide, etc.?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Southtown

*Sigh* That's really the crux of your argument, isn't it? Is what they call 'evil' and 'wicked' correct or incorrect? Without knowing that info, the benevolence of that passage can go either way. You expect people to assume that evil is a matter of convenience. But what about you? Do you find it inconceivable to fight against things which you think are bad? Say like misinformation, propaganda, or genocide, etc.?

It comes down to pointing out just how absolutely ridiculous, uneccessary, and inherently dangerous this approach to life is. It's precisely the misinformation and propaganda of religion that I'm trying to shine light on, and pull the curtain to show that there is no magical fairy tale of a man in the sky controlling it all.


If you had a son, and when he was 17 he still believed in the tooth fairy, you would think he needed help.

I'm here, trying to help you in much the same way.

[HydrogenBond]

In the west, Christianity is the most advanced religion. The beginning was very similar to the Nazi's rounding up the Jews. To be an early Christian was a death sentence. Like the Jews they went like sheep to the slaughter based on a hope. Where they depart, is in spite of that tough beginning and high risk, it continued to spread until it eventually was integrated into the ancient world super power, Rome. It was only a matter of time until Rome was run by Christianity to form the Holy Roman Empire. After that Christianity had two personalities, one like Rome, and one like Christians. This meant doing good things but if that didn't work, kick butt. It was the Holy Roman Empire, so it has a reputation to maintain.

The Holy Empire's influence extended over Europe via the seven kingdoms. From these early Divine Kingdoms would gradually emerged a wide range of empires, which among them controlled most of the world through many centuries. This helped to evolve and advance the world. From the church also appeared some of the greatest art and thinkers. It was also the cradle from which modern science and the Age of Enlightenment would appear.

Roman Catholic Church divided into a number of baby bells, each of which would continue to grow, prosper and spread throughout the world to teach people everywhere. Christianity set the moral constraints from which the Roman domination aspect was gradually phased out. But many of the higher cultural aspects were retained. The Declaration of Independence was written based on a blend of Roman and Christian ethics. This change the world and helped to usher in the modern age.

Whether you believe in God or not, Christianity changed the world, as was promised. Not too bad for some hayseed carpenter. There is no single person in history who has had more impact on the entire world than Jesus. He did this, not as a conqueror but as a sacrifice. Einstein was important, but Jesus was in a league of his own. He was like an evolutionary push that lead to the modern age as we know it. So he is put on high.

Christianity is now the kicking post not covered by PC. It has returned to the beginning again because it is suppose to turn the other cheek. It has already evolved the world to make the original possible in peace.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Southtown

*Sigh* That's really the crux of your argument, isn't it? Is what they call 'evil' and 'wicked' correct or incorrect? Without knowing that info, the benevolence of that passage can go either way. You expect people to assume that evil is a matter of convenience. But what about you? Do you find it inconceivable to fight against things which you think are bad? Say like misinformation, propaganda, or genocide, etc.?

I think you make a good point. Historically, a lot of conflicts we would call "holly wars" (ie religion vs. religion) had little to do with differences in ideology or belief. Mostly they seem to be either cultural, political, or territorial. Basically: tribalism. I believe the common sentiment that religion causes a lot of wars is a simplification. I'm sure there are examples where religion is a majority of the cause, but more likely the differences between waring parties would be there regardless of religion. In other words, it is more human nature to do these evils than it is religious nature.

For example, I condemn Christianity for advocating the killing of Native Americans in the new world. But, I realize the cause of that genocide was not religion but greed.

Blaming religion can then be a bit of a cop out. We can blame great evils on religion itself rather than facing the harder truth that human nature (something we all equally share) is the cause.

This is, however, a gray area and I realize examples can be given against what I'm saying.

~modest

EDIT:

This post may have made more sense if I clearly stated that I think all war is evil. There are cases where one side in a conflict is justified in waging war, but that doesn't change my opinion that the nature, motivation, cause, and effect of war is always evil.

[InfiniteNow]

All the more reason to remove yet another source of tribal division.