That is the very core of why your brand of religion is irrational - and dangerous.
Why can't science and religion just get along?
- Thread starter Infinitus
- Start date
That is the very core of why your brand of religion is irrational - and dangerous.
Okay... we'll look at the idea of the Designer being true. Let us assume that a) a Creator "designed" everything, and b) that it applies to our universe. We now look at the handiwork of the "designer":
The "designer" has "designed" systems that seem to be finely balanced, but in actual fact aren't. Take DNA - it's full of junk, and as a result often mutates to have disastrous side effects in all forms of life. Just look at birth defects and so on - could a "creator" that loves people so have done that intentionally?
A common response is "the universe has been corrupted by fallen Man's sin". Now, we can also assume that the universe is governed by statistics, if it is our universe, so it's a statistical certainty given the size of the universe that there is other intelligent life somewhere else. That life will be governed by the basic laws of biology and have DNA as its basis, and thus be susceptible to the same problems as life on Earth is. So... why does life not descended from Adam and Eve, on a different planet, have to suffer?
This kind of makes us question the competence of the "creator"... an awful lot of mistakes are being made, and the "creator" appears to have "created" a universe that has more life than human beings by way of it being governed by statistics. The creator is thus either a) incompetent and thus not infallible, and therefore is not God, or b) just doesn't exist.
There's a whole host of other arguments that go the same way, and the "creator" loses out in every one of them. Hence why an awful lot of people know "intelligent design" is just complete and utter gibberish, not worthy of a place in education.
This discussion illustrates that it is sometimes hard to find common ground when the parties involved have fundamentally different views of the world. As we saw not too long ago, a question can take a long time to answer because there are misunderstandings embedded in the premises or structure of the question. The goals of the parties in discussions of faith and science are not necessarily the same, which also leads to frustration and unproductive dialogue. I would also submit that many believers in God or other deities have learned the tenets of their faith piecemeal over a period of years. This is not something that most people can translate into logically airtight responses to questions on the spot, even though the actual beliefs do hold together logically.
So, one DOESN'T have to believe in ALL of the Bible...
Which contradicts what you said earlier.
Do you want to change your previous statement, perhaps you mean one must believe ALL of the New Testament and that's it?
This thread clearly shows why there is a major difference between saying "I think..." and "I believe..." .
And damnit, he still didn't answer my question what exactly happened that made him realize God exists.
And the interesting thing is. When an Atheist dies, and meets God, then he'll go "Oh well, cool thing, you do exist, but why the hell didn't you just clearly tell us?" and God will go "Naw, not important, come on, get in." When the (fundamental) Christian dies and recognizes God is NOT the God from the Bible, his entire world will fall apart.
If you "believe" in science (which is contradictory in itself), religion simply adds to it. Science is about exploring the universe, if God created the universe or not is not important at all. But when he finally shows himself, scientists will go "Oh cool, makes sense." But if you believe only in Religion, and do that of the radical kind like Luther Sloan for example, and then you find out that your faith was "wrong", you will be hurt pretty badly. Or not?
And damnit, he still didn't answer my question what exactly happened that made him realize God exists.
And the interesting thing is. When an Atheist dies, and meets God, then he'll go "Oh well, cool thing, you do exist, but why the hell didn't you just clearly tell us?" and God will go "Naw, not important, come on, get in." When the (fundamental) Christian dies and recognizes God is NOT the God from the Bible, his entire world will fall apart.
If you "believe" in science (which is contradictory in itself), religion simply adds to it. Science is about exploring the universe, if God created the universe or not is not important at all. But when he finally shows himself, scientists will go "Oh cool, makes sense." But if you believe only in Religion, and do that of the radical kind like Luther Sloan for example, and then you find out that your faith was "wrong", you will be hurt pretty badly. Or not?
Last edited:
Speaking of ID, apparently this thread evolved to fucking epic in the span of a few days. 
However, for the record: I am usually good. I am sometimes great. I can be awesome. But I am never, ever nice.
Of course it wasn't nice: it was never my intention. Because, behind all the sickly sugary "peace be unto you", "my friends", et cetera, you weren't nice either.
However, for the record: I am usually good. I am sometimes great. I can be awesome. But I am never, ever nice.
A lot of people on both sides of this discussion are not being nice. Most of the Posts I've read do not cross the line. However, these two Posts:
There may be other examples that I've missed. My eyes keep glazing over trying to read this thing. If I wasn't an Atheist, I'd pray that god would smite you all for making me read it.
Do cross the line. Let's not have any more like these, please. Personal attacks are not acceptable.
There may be other examples that I've missed. My eyes keep glazing over trying to read this thing. If I wasn't an Atheist, I'd pray that god would smite you all for making me read it.
I thought I was attacking what the poster said (insane rantings) rather than the poster himself. I've been assuming this forum operated pretty much like the old TNZ before it descended into un-moderated bedlam. That was the guideline there - okay to attack the posts but not the poster.
My "insane rantings" comment was a generic barb without specifying why I thought nearly everything he had said earlier were insane rants. Is that the problem?
Just trying to get a better feel for where the "line" is in this forum so I don't inadvertently cross it again.
Don't worry...it took too damn long to write it, anyway, so the thought of having to turn around and do it again in such a short span of time was a little daunting, because I am way, WAY too meticulous on stuff like that.
I tend to prefer a much more direct style of questioning, myself--which was my intent, in working towards a question where one could actually give an answer and it would reveal legitimate beliefs rather than simply be a trap. For me, the idea is not to embarrass my "opponent," but to have a discussion as equals.
It's definitely a learning process (though that particular train of thought I've worked through before). I don't have every single question about everything answered. But one thing about me--and these days it can be VERY easily misread--is that I have no problem if I DO hit something where I am at an impasse, in putting it aside and working on it at a later time. Now in Internet time that tends to make it look like a defeat or concession...it's just that I simply decided to take time and think.
And ALMOST made me pull one, too! (Well, not quite THAT bad, but I did have to get up early this morning.
)And I would also add that the pieces of faith do not exist in a vacuum. As you probably also saw in my response, even in the process of working that original question towards one where I think we can really get at the fundamental differences of opinion that we're looking at, there are still many more questions and other elements that have to be addressed. Taken in isolation someone could look at that and probably think I have a screw loose. But I wasn't kidding when I said it would probably require that I write a book in order to give a true, full summation of what I think, why it holds together, and what I have seen in my own life that reinforces it.
And I do think that there are some who might look at my response, from the other side, and decide I must be incompetent because it was not "complete." That would be a mistake, though...I know very well that it wasn't a complete answer and I made a decision to stop where I did.
Well, considering that we have to make a decision that solipsism is not a valid philosophy, in order to cope with ANY aspect of life (material or spiritual), even though we cannot 100% PROVE it...
Angela 0077
Captain
I admit. I don't have all the facts either. But I have a pretty good understanding of the Bible and scientific things that support it. If he wants to ignore or twist that around or ignore the Holy trinity that is up to him.
But he is not giving the Bible a clear accurate representation in his argument.
Anyways. I said my peace and have witnessed my testimony.
I think I should take my leave. Everyone is going to need to investigate the truth for themselves and come to their own conclusions in time.
Peace and love be unto you all, my friends.
I am proud of you bowing out of here Mr Sloan you have tryed to explain thing to a certain level and it is good that you were able to post in here and set what you think of the religion you like.
There is a lot of religions that are different and it is interesting to see everyones point of view on the subject in hand.
it was just a shame that somethings could have been better in here and it would have been good to learn more about religions not just Mr Sloans but anyone who is in a religion
It is also good that you had different books and other things to explain what you have learnt too.
Plus l was the one that sent you the link in the first oplace because l thought you would have a interest in this.
I just hope next time if there is a religion thread that we be careful who we hurt.in the process
Last edited:
Luthor Sloan's approach to knowledge as self-described serves as an example of why science and religion "can't get along."
It's science and the religious that are most at odds.
It's science and the religious that are most at odds.
No, it's science and the dogmatically religious that are most at odds.
There is still so much that we don't know. The nature of consciousness (is it an illusion), the nature of existance. There's plenty of room for religion IMHO - just not dogmatic religion. When religion makes non-negotiable claims which are not even subject to the hammer of objective reality, we have dangerous irrationality. Religion need not be like that though.
Angela 0077
Captain
Well i have learnt alot through this on how people react to religion and how nasty it can get.
How we can hurt each other in the process not have a care in the world.
I sometimes wonder how people can beleive in religion. and act this way.
There was a saying through the catholic faith about loving each other.
I could not see it here smiles.
i know there were a few poeple who did want to know more but there were a few hotheads that wrecked it for the ones that wanted to learn about religion
How we can hurt each other in the process not have a care in the world.
I sometimes wonder how people can beleive in religion. and act this way.
There was a saying through the catholic faith about loving each other.
I could not see it here smiles.
i know there were a few poeple who did want to know more but there were a few hotheads that wrecked it for the ones that wanted to learn about religion
The title of thread reminds me of the trite cliche "why can't people get along!"..
Speaking as a scientist I'll tell you why religion and science does not get along. It's because God is a rational asshole. Why do I think God is a rational asshole? Well only a rational asshole could've came up with an universe that obeys physical laws yet nothing in it can be proven true objectively without invoking some set of axioms.
Speaking as a scientist I'll tell you why religion and science does not get along. It's because God is a rational asshole.
Why do I think God is a rational asshole? Well only a rational asshole could've came up with an universe that obeys physical laws yet nothing in it can be proven true objectively without invoking some set of axioms.
Bullshit! You and Luther Sloan have spoken very arrogantly in this thread. You have both acted like the mere disagreement with your position is equivalent to "persecution."
Like it or not, this IS a touchy subject - particularly when one side is dogmatically convinced that the other side is "evil" by virtue of their disagreement. I suggest you grow a MUCH thicker skin if you want to debate this subject because the responses in this thread have been very mild compared to what you would get in a more loosely-moderated forum.
You ought to take a few moments to put yourself in our (unbelievers) shoes. People like Luther Sloan honestly believe that a supreme moral authority has decreed that it is just that we burn in Hell for eternity simply for being wrong. If Luther Sloan is right, people like myself who's rational judgment is that the stories in the Bible are human fables are to burn in Hell for ever for being wrong. To me, that is the greatest atrocity imaginable. Try to think back to the worst pain you have ever experienced. Perhaps a tooth ache, an ear infection or a burn wound. Hell is much worse than that it lasts for ETERNITY! For being wrong! And you WORSHIP this God! And you think WE are being unkind?
Consider, however, who only wanted to talk about ONE religion and ONE path, and called the others disgusting.
I really don't know how people are supposed to "learn and understand" about religion if they are not allowed to debate, i.e. point out weakness in others' arguments.
What we are supposed to say, "thanks for sharing" and let it be? Maybe it's just my contentious streak, but I really don't see any wisdom coming from that.
To be learned and understood, ideas are to be tested and examined, even vehemently, before being accepted or rejected. It's the nature of knowledge, the nature of dialectics. I don't see any "nasty" or "hurting" in that.
What we are supposed to say, "thanks for sharing" and let it be? Maybe it's just my contentious streak, but I really don't see any wisdom coming from that.
To be learned and understood, ideas are to be tested and examined, even vehemently, before being accepted or rejected. It's the nature of knowledge, the nature of dialectics. I don't see any "nasty" or "hurting" in that.
I might be wrong but I think people have learnt more about Quakerism in this thread than they have learnt about Luther Sloan's religion.
Yeah, probably because you answered people's questions instead of dodging them. 
Something interesting C.S. Lewis did in the Chronicles of Narnia (and his writing in Mere Christianity makes it explicitly clear that he did mean this scene to be the way it comes off):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emeth
C.S. Lewis has a very esteemed position as a Christian thinker, and also as an author--which one would THINK would have caused this to garner serious attention. (Or maybe it wasn't as controversial back in his day?) I really find myself wondering why a major controversy hasn't blown up over this yet. I'm actually hoping a controversy WILL blow up about it, if the Chronicles of Narnia movie series ever gets to the point of The Last Battle.
Similar threads
