<p>Your whole argument is that we don’t necessarily know anything in science which isn’t a very supportable position.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Finding the root cause/psychology of a philosophy or idea isn’t stupid. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I take rational to mean making sound judgments based on objective evidence. Accepting the fact that we are the cousins of all living organisms is more rational than say, the tooth fairy created us all 10 years ago. I dont know where you get the idea that scientifically verified evidence is as equally valid as something you can just make up on the spot -and thats the point that makes this chat with you pointless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Faith is belief without any objective evidence or proof. If it was that it wouldn’t be called faith.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Something is only a flaw if you can actually reason your way as to why it is flawed. So far, you haven’t made one decent point. If you are so apologetic to creationists and god-believing how about providing some evidence for it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said you did. I just thought the possible argument that creationists could make about not accepting evolution because they don’t want to nihilistic has no substance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do humans use oxygen in their metabolism? Does the Earth rotate about the sun? Does the atom exist? If those aren’t scientific facts I don’t know what is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In science theory doesn’t mean random speculation. A scientific theory is some phenomenon or group of phenomena that is well supported by the evidence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course -but sadly people treat it like it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then, for example, explain to me why a no-slavery ethical system is not any better an ethical system that supports slavery. Was slavery ok just because it was an economic benefit? Or explain to me why not serving justice to murderers is just as fine as letting them go free.</p>
<p>There you go. Religion authoritarianism caused the inquisition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you consider “love your neighbor” and “love your enemies” to mean let’s not suppress the heresy against our church? And are you aware of the appalling cruelties that are present within the bible? And how can you call yourself a fundamentalist when clearly you just cheery-pick the parts that are good by todays standards and forget about the rest (stoning adulterers, women being the property of men, etc.)?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Free will usually means to people a god giving people the ability to act at their discretion. We obviously don’t think much of that which is what “I don’t believe in free will” means. If you mean the ability to think and so on, then I think we’d all agree.</p>
<p>I agree. And this authoritarianism is not supported by the Bible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and specifically, this verse:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not see any way a supporter of the Inquisition can get around that verse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am aware of the quotes which are cherry-picked out of context on atheist web sites, yes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the contrary, you would have to cherry-pick verses to justify such things as stoning adulterers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jesus did not answer, but started writing in the dust with his finger. He then said “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”</p>
<p>We don’t know what he wrote, but people have guessed that he wrote a list of sins the teachers present had committed, showing them that he knew their guilt.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then Paul writes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If someone calls themselves a Christian, yet does such things, we should not associate with him, for he is being a hypocrite (Jesus has more bad things to say about hypocrites than about pretty much anyone else).</p>
<p>There is no justification for us to burn, torture, and kill ANYONE, regardless of their beliefs.</p>
<p>As for the wife “being the property of her husband”, I am unsure where you are getting this from. Verse please? In the Old Testament time period women were considered property by everyone in that society. The laws of Moses actually provided them with much more protection than they would otherwise have had.</p>
<p>Compare with the contemporary Code of Hammarubi:</p>
<p>Hammarubi: If a man strikes a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry and die, his own daughter shall be put to death (unless the woman was of the lower class, in which case he merely pays a fine, even if she dies).</p>
<p>Moses: If a man strikes a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry, but there is no serious injury, then he must pay a fine. If there is injury, take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. The man himself is punished, not his daughter. Also, the law treats all equally.</p>
<p>Hammarubi: Rape is a theft, and restitution must be made to the victim’s “owner”.</p>
<p>Moses: Rape is a capital crime, and the rapist shall be put to death.</p>
<p>Hammarubi: It is a crime punishable by having an eye gouged out for the son of a prostitute to demand to be considered the son of his biological parents instead of the parents that bought him from the prostitute.</p>
<p>Moses: You shall not force your daughter to become a prostitute. Children are the children of their biological parents.</p>
<p>As for the New Testament: Wives are told to “submit to their husbands”. This doesn’t mean the husbands “own” them, it means the wives are expected *by God<a href=“not%20by%20law”>/I</a> to follow their husbands’ lead.</p>
<p>Free will means “I can choose A or B. Both are options, and nothing is forcing me to choose one or the other”.</p>
<p>There’s no natural explanation for this ability. By all natural laws, humans should be actiing according to the physical reactions in their brains, and all the things they do should be predetermined by the state of the matter and energy in the univese at any given moment.</p>
We can “know” things in science, but do we necessarily “know” scientific “absolute truths” (outside of strict definitions). The word “know” is perhaps more important here than you might think. We can talk about “scientific knowledge,” but is that the only kind of knowledge there is?</p>
<p>
Well, doing so would be an interesting intellectual endeavour, however, using those findings in an argument against said philosophy, would be quite foolish. Basic philosophy 101.</p>
<p>
I don’t.</p>
<p>
How does one make up evidence on the spot? Yes, actual objective evidence is probably more scientifically significant than made up stuff.</p>
<p>
I think you are confusing empiricism and rationalism again.</p>
<p>Look:
A: All cups are green.
B: Socrates is a cup.
C: Therefore, Socrates is green.</p>
<p>C is still a rational conclusion and this is a valid argument even though the premises A and B are not empirically verified; there is no evidence for them (and they obviously not true).</p>
<p>
Oh, cute…let’s throw “scientific facts” in there when we were actually talking about absolute truths and actual “proof.”</p>
<p>
Well yes, it is speculation based upon observations. A theory such as “unicorns have blue horns” is obviously useless. </p>
<p>
This sentence makes no sense.</p>
<p>
“I think that I am amazing and I would just love it if I had slaves to do my work for me, so therefore slavery is good. A no-slavery society does not support my desires, so it is bad.”</p>
<p>
I suppose some people might have felt that way. </p>
<p>
“I am a murderer with an addiction to killing. I am currently on trial for killing some people, but I think it would be fine if justice was not served and I could go free in order to fuel my addiction”</p>
<p>There is no explanation that we know of. It’s so easy to say “ohh, science can’t explain one thing? +1 for the theists!” 1000 years ago humans were unable to determine what caused illness, and attributed it to demons. Those who claimed this could not be disproven, but did this make them right?</p>
<p>^ If they found an explanation, this explanation would either be natural, in which case it merely pushes the same problem one step deeper, or supernatural, in which case in contradicts atheism.</p>
<p>^ What is your definition of supernatural? Just the fact that anything exists at all is supernatural: there’s no way for natural laws to explain it.</p>
<p>And I do agree: Future research MAY turn up evidence that will provide support for a theory. But basing theories on as-yet undisconvered evidence is a bad way to do science.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but it made it unreasonable to reject their theory given the knowledge that was currently available.</p>
<p>After how many weeks, people are still going at it.
Just shows that it’s impossible to argue which one is more important because of diverging views, and that this thread has become more of a debate between <em>cough</em> specific people.</p>
<p>^ Well, mifune definitely has me beat in words-per-post… I tend to break up a large post and respond to it piece by piece, since that makes the argument easier to follow.</p>
<p>Well, to answer the OP’s original question, I’d say both have had their fair share of detrimental effects with regard to societal impacts.</p>
<p>You don’t have to really think too hard about it, I think. Scientific advancements have continued to plague society with some very disdainful consequences: an example most relevant to the times would probably be the atomic bomb and the constant fear of nuclear warfare.</p>
<p>Just like science, religious ideology has always been rooted within society, an almost inherent quality for many people throughout history. Therefore, you don’t have to think too far or wide to come up with acts of brutality that match the consequences created by science: the Salem Witch Craft trials, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the racist ideals that permeated society during the 19th century.</p>
<p>I do, however, think that it’s interesting that while religion still plays a prominent role in contemporary society, it seems to have merely brushed over the younger generation, with an increasing number of adolescents claiming to be atheists, agnostics, or something of the kind.</p>
With all due respect, it’s possible to argue that the RCC is still corrupt and misguided, although (arguably) not to the extent of the era when the Spanish Inquisition existed.</p>
<p>While I find your apparent open mindedness admirable (I say apparent because I’ve only skimmed through your past posts on this thread and have only a vague idea of your views), I found it almost laughable when you quoted this phrase from the bible:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And then saw this ironic tid-bit on the RCC website:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would think that social acceptance (as quoted from their website) and love (quoted from the commandments) would include respect, justice and care.</p>
<p>Perhaps I’m merely misguided, but when an institution that boasts of love and acceptance and care suddenly turns on a group of people based on something so trivial as sexual orientation (similarly as it justified racism in the 19th century), I find it extremely difficult not to find the message that they “were” corrupt, with the implication that they are no longer so, riddled with hypocrisy.</p>
<p>Edit: I read over my post and found that it sounds like I’m attacking your post (my posts usually have some sort of unintended bite to them), but please note that that is not my intention at all. I know, this tacky disclaimer is the equivalent of, “I don’t value your input because you’re an idiot. No offense.”</p>
<p>I agree. Which is why I’m not a Catholic. But if they are corrupt, it is because they have ceased to follow the teachings of Christ, not because those teachings are corrupt.</p>
<p>If the Bible conflicts with the RCC, then I consider what is the Bible teaches to be true Christianity and consider what the RCC says to be human invention. Catholics may take a very different view; see my debate with Baelor here.</p>
<p>As far as the subject of homosexuality goes, I believe it is quite clear from the Bible that it is wrong.</p>
<p>But see the verses I posted: It’s not our job to enforce the standards we are held to on the world. We are supposed to win people over to inward belief, not force them into outward compliance.</p>
<p>So yes, I believe homosexuality is wrong. I do not think that as a Christian I would be justified in trying to make it illegal.</p>
<p>Really, though, by the same logic, I see no reason why marriage in general should be involved with the government.</p>
<p>This is actually a fairly new position for me; until recently I hadn’t given the issue much thought. I’m still developing it, so feel free to question any parts of it.</p>