Damn religious people

[Straughn]

Also, are you implying you want to fuck your sister? You realize how unnatural that is?

posting.php?mode=quote&f=20&p=515046

[Straughn]

Religion is needed for keep people away from stealing,murdering,raping etc etc and be moral for all the wrong reasons

Fixed.

[Lycandom]

by Straughn » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:46 am

Martaz wrote:
Religion is needed for keep people away from stealing,murdering,raping etc etc and be moral

for all the wrong reasons
Fixed.

So you are saying you shouldn't be moral because it is the right thing to do? That makes absolutely no sense at all. You should be moral because you should care about your fellow people.

You seem to believe that there is nothing after death so how do you want to spend your life? Sitting there criticizing people who believe something different then you to the point that you look intolerant or do you want to do something useful for mankind. For others to come and spread tolerance. The second one sounds best to me. Its called a Legacy. Something good to be remembered by.

by Treznor » Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:44 pm

Lycandom wrote:
Look Buffett, I'm not saying you're doing it, but face it it happens and it happens largely to religious people. Look at France, great example their recent laws are oppressive toward Muslim women.

Oppression is real and I stand by what I said in my last post. When it reaches that point enough is enough. Regardless of whether you believe or do what is being oppressed or not you shouldn't let oppression happen.

Query: what's the difference between challenging someone's claims and oppressing them?

The difference between oppression and criticism is:

Oppression - The act of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. The feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc. - Biggest religious example - The Holocaust.

A.K.A. Restricting someone's right to believe. Speaking out in a hateful manner. Perfect example happened right before your eyes on this thread. The guy who said that people shouldn't be allowed to practice religion is a form of verbal oppression. Telling someone what to think is a form of oppression, minor, but real.

Criticism - Democratic judgment over the suitability of a subject for the intended purposes, as opposed to the authoritarian command, which is meant as an absolute realization of the authority's will <------ (OPPRESSION).

This is discussing, key word, democratically. This means freely and allowing the other person to have their thoughts. For example, let's go small. When you got an english paper back in high school. Let's say you got an A. There were still be suggestions and criticisms written on the paper. Ideas added to yours and things to contemplate. Never was their a mandate that said you had to think this way because your way is "delusional".

That's the real difference.

by UnhealthyTruthseeker
From what I've seen of Lycandom, criticism = oppression. Dawkins is oppressive because even though he doesn't want to outlaw religion, he calls it bad names like "delusion"!

You don't understand because you don't know what it is like to be oppressed for religious beliefs. Just because it doesn't bother you doesn't mean it doesn't bother others. Sitting there and saying someone is delusional is a heavy word. That implies mental incapabilities and possible medication needs. That is why it is oppressive to say that someone is delusional because they believe in something.

My personal opinion is it isn't oppressive just highly ridiculous. Belief is not delusion. If it is then we have nothing as humans more than an animal. Thought is belief. You believe that what you were taught in school is true. You believe that science is real. You believe that there are planets outside of our solar system. You don't always see these things, but you still believe them. So if belief is delusion than everything that you can't see or touch isn't real. Do you really believe that?

In addition, Dawkins is a fool, not oppressive, just foolish. He is blinded by his atheism and can't separate it from his science. He spends hours trying to get everyone to hate religion instead of working on research that furthers humanity. That's my opinion. Get off it. You have your beliefs and I have mine. You can't pick and choose which ones you think are delusional because they fancy you. Mr. Dawkins has tunnel vision plain and simple. And he spreads hate instead of good will.

Unhealthy Truthseeker, oppression is serious and you should think so. I hope it never happens to you.

by Kobrania » Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:49 pm
How is that oppressive?! I don't call people oppressive if they call me fag or beat me shitless, I call them oppressive if they try to stop me having sex or making out in public.

First off, no one speaks for me so Kobrania don't accept answers that aren't mine for questions posed to me. Thank you.

Secondly, I explained oppression above happens to a lot of people regardless of what people on here say. You seem to know that quite well. I have another thing to add, the other guy (may have been you I'm not sure) who said that it is religious people's fault that gay people can't marry are wrong plain and simple. Do you think that there are no Democrats that are religious? Do you think that none of the people that live in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, (possibly in November) Maine, New Hampshire (by 2010), California between June and November of 2008, and New York and D.C. (recognize same-sex marriages as legally performed by other states) don't have any religious people at all in them?

Thirdly, being beat up for being gay is oppressive. Also being called fag in a derogatory manner is known as slurring.

The movement for acceptance of gay marriage as legitimate is one that I support. As well as, the fact that it mirrors religious movements for acceptance over the way science is used as hate against it. Science itself cannot be hateful or bad, it is good in nature and leads to many good breakthroughs. Religion itself is good in nature as well. But that doesn't mean they can't be used for oppression and hate. Religion is not bad and never will be. People are bad and that is why we need religion if you want to get down to the nitty gritty. We need to be told because we don't listen very well. Plain and simple.

You guys seem to all eat up the scapegoat known as religion.

You can't more simpler than - live and let live. I don't care if you don't believe it or you don't like it then don't believe it and don't like it, but don't judge others and look down on them. That's xenophobic and just plain asinine.

I stand up for the right for you guys not to believe and for you to be able to be atheists, not so that you can sit there and call me delusional, but because it is everyone's right to have their own mind.

So stop fueling hate acts and giving people excuses to denounce religion. Recognize the fact that it is a philosophy and in its nature like science is good. It can be wielded like anything else to a horrible person's whim to be used for their agenda, but you cannot let them have their excuse. They did what they did because they thought it, they were filled with this hatred. Nothing to do with religion or anything else. Maybe they have a mental illness, but that doesn't relate to religion.

I'm sick of living in a world full of hate and xenophobia and oppression on small and grande scales. I won't sit back and let it escalate and you shouldn't either. We have let hatred escalate into genocide and murders in the past and we should learn from history that this close-mindedness is wrong.

I feel good that you guys have never experienced hate, but you should be empathetic.

In the real world, hate is real and many have experienced it including me and Kobrania. For different reasons, but at the core it is the same. It is because we are something that others aren't.

[Treznor]

by Treznor » Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:44 pm

Lycandom wrote:
Look Buffett, I'm not saying you're doing it, but face it it happens and it happens largely to religious people. Look at France, great example their recent laws are oppressive toward Muslim women.

Oppression is real and I stand by what I said in my last post. When it reaches that point enough is enough. Regardless of whether you believe or do what is being oppressed or not you shouldn't let oppression happen.

Query: what's the difference between challenging someone's claims and oppressing them?

The difference between oppression and criticism is:

Oppression - The act of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. The feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc. - Biggest religious example - The Holocaust.

A.K.A. Restricting someone's right to believe. Speaking out in a hateful manner. Perfect example happened right before your eyes on this thread. The guy who said that people shouldn't be allowed to practice religion is a form of verbal oppression. Telling someone what to think is a form of oppression, minor, but real.

Criticism - Democratic judgment over the suitability of a subject for the intended purposes, as opposed to the authoritarian command, which is meant as an absolute realization of the authority's will <------ (OPPRESSION).

This is discussing, key word, democratically. This means freely and allowing the other person to have their thoughts. For example, let's go small. When you got an english paper back in high school. Let's say you got an A. There were still be suggestions and criticisms written on the paper. Ideas added to yours and things to contemplate. Never was their a mandate that said you had to think this way because your way is "delusional".

That's the real difference.

So, why is it that religious folk always scream "OPPRESSION" whenever someone brings up criticism? Like, say, you claim that religion is necessary for morality, and someone challenges it on the grounds of it being utter nonsense?

[Straughn]

So you are saying you shouldn't be moral because it is the right thing to do?

I've noted that italics are highly underrated for some reason. Perhaps sometimes you don't hear me, because sometimes (i'm speaking in parentheses).

You should be moral because you should care about your fellow people.

True. You shouldn't, however, assume that you have morality because you have a code of conduct. That was my point, there, about the italics and all.

You seem to believe that there is nothing after death so how do you want to spend your life?

Chez what? You should worry less about seeming and more about being.
Further, i don't have a problem worrying about that kind of bullshit, because a good chunk of people seem to be too afraid to let go of their egos and just allow that death is really just that- death. No more deciding, fretting, expending anything. You're just dead, that's pretty much it. People think much more of their existence than is actually there ... kind of like that seeming problem i've noted.

Sitting there criticizing people who believe something different then you to the point that you look intolerant or do you want to do something useful for mankind. For others to come and spread tolerance. The second one sounds best to me. Its called a Legacy.

Why capitalise that? The car? Pthpt.
*shakes head*

Something good to be remembered by.

Why bother. It's the works and deeds, not the seems. Do the right thing for what you are and you won't have to worry about what others remember. You shouldn't anyway, since it won't matter that much.

We hold these truths to be self-evident ....

[Lycandom]

I hold this truth to be self-evident - Do unto others as you want done onto you.

Plain and simple, treat others with tolerance and you shall receive it back. Don't and don't expect it back. Live and let live. Don't tell others how to live and they won't tell you. You want freedom then you should want freedom for everyone.

So, why is it that religious folk always scream "OPPRESSION" whenever someone brings up criticism? Like, say, you claim that religion is necessary for morality, and someone challenges it on the grounds of it being utter nonsense?

I won't say this again. Oppression was explained by me previously. This discussion is not oppression. Criticisms are not oppressions. Oppressions are oppressions. If you think that the Holocaust was a criticism that's a whole different matter and you would be wrong. I have never said and never will say that you guys saying that God isn't real is oppression. That's the epitome of freedom, the ability for you to say that. I like it and I want it for everyone including people who disagree with me. But what I don't want is people attempting to take my freedoms away, that's oppression. And if you don't get it now then you never will.

[Martaz]

Humans are hard-wired to believe in something,points me an atheist ancients civilization.

most atheist wants feel themself parts of an "elite"

[Tunizcha]

Humans are hard-wired to believe in something,points me an atheist ancients civilization.

most atheist wants feel themself parts of an "elite"

Just because something is recurrent doesn't mean that it's horribly, horribly misguided. Especially if its recurrence traces back to ancient civilizations that started paganism, bigotry, slaughtering, etc.

Elitism? If that is your way of saying that some of us partake in science rather than inane superstition, than thank you. I'd rather put my faith in a methodology of observational data and non-bias than your set of baseless beliefs.

[Lycandom]

Humans are hard-wired to believe in something,points me an atheist ancients civilization.

most atheist wants feel themself parts of an "elite"

Just because something is recurrent doesn't mean that it's horribly, horribly misguided. Especially if its recurrence traces back to ancient civilizations that started paganism, bigotry, slaughtering, etc.

Elitism? If that is your way of saying that some of us partake in science rather than inane superstition, than thank you. I'd rather put my faith in a methodology of observational data and non-bias than your set of baseless beliefs.

So you think you're the only ones that believe science? You're all more misguided then I thought. You think the millions upon millions of religious people don't believe a word of science including the ones that are scientists. That's horribly, horribly misguided if you ask me.

And go blaming religion again as your scapegoat for the way people act. Slaughtering and bigotry were not created by religions. People used religions to excuse those actions. Get it straight. They do it today and it's about time everyone wise up. People are accountable for their actions. Just because they claim they are the same religion as me or that they are a different religion doesn't mean that thier religion truly had anything to do with it or that the people from their religion largely support their actions. In fact, if you believe that they do then you really don't get it.

My faith isn't baseless just like yours isn't. Mine is based off of eyewitnesses historical accounts for one instance. Yours is based off of countless theories by multiple people. Among those people I'm sure, if you believe in gravity for one, are religious scientists who apparently believe baseless things.

If you lash out and say that my beliefs are misguided and baseless then what I get is you won't even attempt to understand nor want to coexist in a peaceful area together. My ideal world would be one where people like you could get over it and get along with people like me. Sometimes that doesn't happen. There are a ton of atheists and a ton of religious people who get along great its when you draw lines and make unfounded claims where people start to get argumentative. And the whole live and let live or why can't we just talk about something else or why can't we just respect one another as intelligent humans becomes null because people don't want to hear that.

Anecdote: Think before you speak. If you don't understand religion, which from your above statement about baseless (I guess you never heard of religious texts or the ability of the human brain to believe something else other than what yours does) I get that you really don't understand. You can't empathize and get others well who have different beliefs. That's alright. Just don't make claims that are baseless please. Science and religion are companions and if you don't like it too bad. If you think you're special because you don't believe a word of religion than think again because science itself is based upon religion and religious people galore. So either wise up and look it up and learn the truth or live in your world where you think there is a clear cut picture, black and white of science and religion because in reality there are a lot of gray areas.

Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone has their reasons, virtually making baseless beliefs not real.

The Scientific 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present, Citadel Press (2000), written by John Galbraith Simmons.

This is a list of great scientists who were religious, crazy? No because I've been saying the entire time that religion and science aren't opposites.

• (Anglican) - Isaac Newton [gravity, calculus, optics]
• (Jewish) - Albert Einstein [General relativity, Special relativity, Photoelectric effect, etc.], John von Neumann [became Catholic - Game thoery, many theorems], Paul Ehrlich [autoimmunity studies], J. Robert Oppenheimer [Manhattan Project Atomic Bomb creation], Edward Teller [Hydrogen Bomb], Jonas Salk [Polio vaccine]
• (Jewish - Lutheran) - Neils Bohr [Physics, Bohr Model], Max Born [Nobel Prize for Physics 1954]
• (Anglican/Unitarian - became Agnostic) - Charles Darwin [Natural Selection and Origin of the Species]
• (Catholic) - Galileo Galilei [Astronomy, Kinematics, Dynamics], Antoine Laurent Lavoisier [Father of Modern Chemistry], Louis Pasteur [germ theory, pasteurization, immunology], Nicolaus Copernicus (Priest) [Astronomy, canon law, medicine], Erwin Schrodinger [Nobel Prize in Physics 1933], Gregor Mendel (Priest) [Discovered Genetics], Alexander Fleming [Nobel Prize Physics 1945, penicillin]
• (Lutheran) - Johannes Kepler [Planetary Motion], Werner Heisenberg [Uncertainty principle, Matrix mechanics, Nobel Prize Physics 1932]
• (Protestant) - Max Planck [Nobel Prize Physics 1918, father executed by gestapo, Planck's Constant]
• (Calvinist) - Christiaan Huygens [First Theoretical Physicist]
• (Quaker) - John Dalton [Atomic Theory, Law of Multiple Proportions]
  
• (Catholic Priest) - Georges Lemaître [Creator of the Big Bang Theory - he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom']

I guess it isn't so delusional after all, some of the greatest minds to walk the Earth ever were religious. Maybe you'll think again before saying religion is the opposite of science. Science was founded by many religious minds after all.

And that is just a short list of scientists, there are other great minds of the world including writers, politicians, activists, etc. It isn't crazy or delusional or unfounded to believe something another person doesn't its called being different and its not that bad.

[The Alma Mater]

I guess it isn't so delusional after all, some of the greatest minds to walk the Earth ever were religious.

I do hope you realise your list includes people like EInstein, Darwin and Galilei - people who, as their knowledge progressed, started to actively contradict the teachings of Christianity and renounced their faith - though they did remain spiritual.

[Reploid Productions]

*glides through the thread with a tanker of fire retardant* Reminder, guys; keep it civil. Religion can be a touchy issue for some folks, and I'd rather not have to whack anybody for rule violations if it can be prevented. Remember, if something someone says on a forum makes you really livid and pissed off, that's a real good sign you should walk away from the computer for a bit!

[Pure Metal]

by Straughn » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:46 am

Martaz wrote:
Religion is needed for keep people away from stealing,murdering,raping etc etc and be moral

for all the wrong reasons
Fixed.

So you are saying you shouldn't be moral because it is the right thing to do? That makes absolutely no sense at all. You should be moral because you should care about your fellow people.

you should be moral because you recognise its the right thing to do, not because some church or old book told you to be moral (and if you don't you'll suffer).

[Krypton-Zod]

Because they tell us to join in(or else)?

Because closing your eyes and bowing your head for about 30 seconds is just too hard?

Is it that hard to kneel and bow your head facing east? No? How come you don't do it?

Because he's not in a situation that calls for it, if I was in a Mosque I'd certainly do it, or if I was with Muslims I would certainly do it.

You should come to my house every day to have dinner, my religion requires my guests to give me huge amounts of cash.

[Krypton-Zod]

I'm catholic but even if my religion will be proven false i continue to support it ......Religion is needed for keep people away from stealing,murdering,raping etc etc and be moral

I don't want a world where people can walk on the street naked or fucking their sister

communism regime were atheist and kill million of people...

More people were killed in the name of religion than for any other reason. Conquistadores (Americas), muslim warlords (the entire Middle East, parts of Africa, India). Plus, all Abrahamic religions are supremacist.

Query: what's the difference between challenging someone's claims and oppressing them?

Once you challenge religion, the religious folks will always scream 'oppression' because they cannot rebut your challenge. To the religious folks, tolerance is a one way street. Everyone's gotta tolerate their beliefs, but the religious never reciprocate.

Religion is and always has been the strongest retrograde force on the planet.

[Katganistan]

by Treznor » Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:44 pm

Lycandom wrote:
Look Buffett, I'm not saying you're doing it, but face it it happens and it happens largely to religious people. Look at France, great example their recent laws are oppressive toward Muslim women.

Oppression is real and I stand by what I said in my last post. When it reaches that point enough is enough. Regardless of whether you believe or do what is being oppressed or not you shouldn't let oppression happen.

Query: what's the difference between challenging someone's claims and oppressing them?

The difference between oppression and criticism is:

Oppression - The act of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. The feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc. - Biggest religious example - The Holocaust.

A.K.A. Restricting someone's right to believe. Speaking out in a hateful manner. Perfect example happened right before your eyes on this thread. The guy who said that people shouldn't be allowed to practice religion is a form of verbal oppression. Telling someone what to think is a form of oppression, minor, but real.

Criticism - Democratic judgment over the suitability of a subject for the intended purposes, as opposed to the authoritarian command, which is meant as an absolute realization of the authority's will <------ (OPPRESSION).

This is discussing, key word, democratically. This means freely and allowing the other person to have their thoughts. For example, let's go small. When you got an english paper back in high school. Let's say you got an A. There were still be suggestions and criticisms written on the paper. Ideas added to yours and things to contemplate. Never was their a mandate that said you had to think this way because your way is "delusional".

That's the real difference.

So, why is it that religious folk always scream "OPPRESSION" whenever someone brings up criticism? Like, say, you claim that religion is necessary for morality, and someone challenges it on the grounds of it being utter nonsense?

Religion is not necessary for ethical behavior or morality. I know plenty of atheists who are scrupulously ethical, moral people and plenty of religious people who are the antitheses of these philosophies.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Humans are hard-wired to believe in something,points me an atheist ancients civilization.

most atheist wants feel themself parts of an "elite"

Just because something is recurrent doesn't mean that it's horribly, horribly misguided. Especially if its recurrence traces back to ancient civilizations that started paganism, bigotry, slaughtering, etc.

Elitism? If that is your way of saying that some of us partake in science rather than inane superstition, than thank you. I'd rather put my faith in a methodology of observational data and non-bias than your set of baseless beliefs.

So you think you're the only ones that believe science? You're all more misguided then I thought. You think the millions upon millions of religious people don't believe a word of science including the ones that are scientists. That's horribly, horribly misguided if you ask me.

And go blaming religion again as your scapegoat for the way people act. Slaughtering and bigotry were not created by religions. People used religions to excuse those actions. Get it straight. They do it today and it's about time everyone wise up. People are accountable for their actions. Just because they claim they are the same religion as me or that they are a different religion doesn't mean that thier religion truly had anything to do with it or that the people from their religion largely support their actions. In fact, if you believe that they do then you really don't get it.

My faith isn't baseless just like yours isn't. Mine is based off of eyewitnesses historical accounts for one instance. Yours is based off of countless theories by multiple people. Among those people I'm sure, if you believe in gravity for one, are religious scientists who apparently believe baseless things.

If you lash out and say that my beliefs are misguided and baseless then what I get is you won't even attempt to understand nor want to coexist in a peaceful area together. My ideal world would be one where people like you could get over it and get along with people like me. Sometimes that doesn't happen. There are a ton of atheists and a ton of religious people who get along great its when you draw lines and make unfounded claims where people start to get argumentative. And the whole live and let live or why can't we just talk about something else or why can't we just respect one another as intelligent humans becomes null because people don't want to hear that.

Anecdote: Think before you speak. If you don't understand religion, which from your above statement about baseless (I guess you never heard of religious texts or the ability of the human brain to believe something else other than what yours does) I get that you really don't understand. You can't empathize and get others well who have different beliefs. That's alright. Just don't make claims that are baseless please. Science and religion are companions and if you don't like it too bad. If you think you're special because you don't believe a word of religion than think again because science itself is based upon religion and religious people galore. So either wise up and look it up and learn the truth or live in your world where you think there is a clear cut picture, black and white of science and religion because in reality there are a lot of gray areas.

Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone has their reasons, virtually making baseless beliefs not real.

The Scientific 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present, Citadel Press (2000), written by John Galbraith Simmons.

This is a list of great scientists who were religious, crazy? No because I've been saying the entire time that religion and science aren't opposites.

• (Anglican) - Isaac Newton [gravity, calculus, optics]
• (Jewish) - Albert Einstein [General relativity, Special relativity, Photoelectric effect, etc.], John von Neumann [became Catholic - Game thoery, many theorems], Paul Ehrlich [autoimmunity studies], J. Robert Oppenheimer [Manhattan Project Atomic Bomb creation], Edward Teller [Hydrogen Bomb], Jonas Salk [Polio vaccine]
• (Jewish - Lutheran) - Neils Bohr [Physics, Bohr Model], Max Born [Nobel Prize for Physics 1954]
• (Anglican/Unitarian - became Agnostic) - Charles Darwin [Natural Selection and Origin of the Species]
• (Catholic) - Galileo Galilei [Astronomy, Kinematics, Dynamics], Antoine Laurent Lavoisier [Father of Modern Chemistry], Louis Pasteur [germ theory, pasteurization, immunology], Nicolaus Copernicus (Priest) [Astronomy, canon law, medicine], Erwin Schrodinger [Nobel Prize in Physics 1933], Gregor Mendel (Priest) [Discovered Genetics], Alexander Fleming [Nobel Prize Physics 1945, penicillin]
• (Lutheran) - Johannes Kepler [Planetary Motion], Werner Heisenberg [Uncertainty principle, Matrix mechanics, Nobel Prize Physics 1932]
• (Protestant) - Max Planck [Nobel Prize Physics 1918, father executed by gestapo, Planck's Constant]
• (Calvinist) - Christiaan Huygens [First Theoretical Physicist]
• (Quaker) - John Dalton [Atomic Theory, Law of Multiple Proportions]
  
• (Catholic Priest) - Georges Lemaître [Creator of the Big Bang Theory - he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom']

I guess it isn't so delusional after all, some of the greatest minds to walk the Earth ever were religious. Maybe you'll think again before saying religion is the opposite of science. Science was founded by many religious minds after all.

And that is just a short list of scientists, there are other great minds of the world including writers, politicians, activists, etc. It isn't crazy or delusional or unfounded to believe something another person doesn't its called being different and its not that bad.

1) The human mind is very good at compartmentalization. This allows people to hold mutually exclusive ideas and pretend as if they aren't inconsistent. Is any particular scientific finding inconsistent with religion? Not in general, but certain scientific findings contradict certain religious teachings. Also, the scientific methodology itself really isn't compatible with how religion works. The whole "faith" thing doesn't fit within scientific methodology.

2) This is an argument from authority. There is no evidence here that a god of any kind exists. When you look at someone like Newton that also believed in astrology and alchemy, you see that plenty of highly intelligent people can believe very "weird" things. (I'm using the Michael Shermer definition of "weird.")

3) Some people, like Einstein, don't really belong where you put them. Do we need to find the Einstein didn't believe in a personal god quote for the millionth time?

[Carbarosia]

*Laughs* Pfft *Laughs*

So *Laughs* how was your *Laughs* meal?

Sorry, how was your meal?

[Krypton-Zod]

This is a list of great scientists who were religious, crazy? No because I've been saying the entire time that religion and science aren't opposites.

• (Anglican) - Isaac Newton [gravity, calculus, optics]
• (Jewish) - Albert Einstein [General relativity, Special relativity, Photoelectric effect, etc.], John von Neumann [became Catholic - Game thoery, many theorems], Paul Ehrlich [autoimmunity studies], J. Robert Oppenheimer [Manhattan Project Atomic Bomb creation], Edward Teller [Hydrogen Bomb], Jonas Salk [Polio vaccine]
• (Jewish - Lutheran) - Neils Bohr [Physics, Bohr Model], Max Born [Nobel Prize for Physics 1954]
• (Anglican/Unitarian - became Agnostic) - Charles Darwin [Natural Selection and Origin of the Species]
• (Catholic) - Galileo Galilei [Astronomy, Kinematics, Dynamics], Antoine Laurent Lavoisier [Father of Modern Chemistry], Louis Pasteur [germ theory, pasteurization, immunology], Nicolaus Copernicus (Priest) [Astronomy, canon law, medicine], Erwin Schrodinger [Nobel Prize in Physics 1933], Gregor Mendel (Priest) [Discovered Genetics], Alexander Fleming [Nobel Prize Physics 1945, penicillin]
• (Lutheran) - Johannes Kepler [Planetary Motion], Werner Heisenberg [Uncertainty principle, Matrix mechanics, Nobel Prize Physics 1932]
• (Protestant) - Max Planck [Nobel Prize Physics 1918, father executed by gestapo, Planck's Constant]
• (Calvinist) - Christiaan Huygens [First Theoretical Physicist]
• (Quaker) - John Dalton [Atomic Theory, Law of Multiple Proportions]
  
• (Catholic Priest) - Georges Lemaître [Creator of the Big Bang Theory - he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom']

I guess it isn't so delusional after all, some of the greatest minds to walk the Earth ever were religious. Maybe you'll think again before saying religion is the opposite of science. Science was founded by many religious minds after all.

Ever heard of 'religious in name only'. Galilei for example was oppressed by the church.

But still, 'god' does not exist, and frankly people who do believe it are delusional and weakminded.

Fortunately, these days more people are waking up to the 'god delusion'.

[Lycandom]

First,

by Krypton-Zod

Once you challenge religion, the religious folks will always scream 'oppression' because they cannot rebut your challenge. To the religious folks, tolerance is a one way street. Everyone's gotta tolerate their beliefs, but the religious never reciprocate.

Religion is and always has been the strongest retrograde force on the planet.

Wrong. Plain and simple. Can't get anymore wrong. You'll full of crap. I tolerate you don't I, it's very, very hard. Trust me. You saw a lot of nasty things about religious people yet I listen to you. My bane I guess, being tolerant. Perhaps people aren't tolerant of you because you say things like religion is the strongest retrograde on the planet. Maybe if you showed tolerance you could expect, don't and don't expect it. Make outlandish claims and you won't get respected because you don't really deserve it after all of that, do you?

P.S. The strongest retrograde on the planet is intolerance. That's what causes "holy wars" and that's what causes genocide, cultural centrism, xenophobia, and disrespect.

Also, so religion can be used as a weapon to kill people so can other things. You want to get rid of religion, should we get rid of all things that kill people or just the ones you don't like? Guns, cars, knives, wires, shovels, people's hands, bats, motorcycles, bikes, water, etc. Its ridiculous to want to take something away from someone because someone else used it inappropriately. Your punishing people for something they didn't do.

by Pure Metal

You do realize that what your saying is a belief set, right? Everyone lives by a belief system whether they admit it or even realize it. Just because mine is written and I share it with others doesn't mean anything. You also realize that God is benevolent in most religions and so what you are saying is a misunderstanding of religion.

We don't think our beliefs are baseless because, like you we see through our eyes and with our brain. Therefore, your convictions are just as strong as ours and we see lots of evidence where you see none and we see lots of issues where you see none. That's what no one here seems to get. If you project yourself into another person, empathy, then you may realize that different people are different and they can believe something you don't, its okay and there isn't anything bad about it. In fact, religion "saves" a lot of people's lives.

Religion is just a name that people place on the beliefs to compartmentalize and to understand by generality. It is a label. And as we all know labels aren't always right. Everyone lives by a set of beliefs no matter what you call it, you do. Whether you claim that you aren't religious and are moral so everyone else can be still means that you live by a belief system. Do you believe that murder is bad? Yes. That's part of your right and wrong belief system. Mine just happens to be called religion.

By the way, by and large I believe that morality isn't based on religion and not all non-religious people are immoral, but some are and you can't say that religion doesn't help people be moral or find themselves. It is an excellent philosophical tool for many people.

Should we get rid of all philosophies or just the ones you don't like? I would love to shut up stupid people, but you can't because it isn't right to take away their rights to be that way.

People aren't a set of labels or a number even though most of us want to categorize people to make it easier to say things.

Like that guy before who said religion should be removed. I bet he says religious people as a whole, but he can't comprehend nor look in the faces of each and every one of those millions of men, women, and children and tell them that we are taking your right to believe what you want away. He couldn't because he's just all talk. He wouldn't be able stand before the masses and declare his dictatorship.

A very smart man once said, you can't rise above your mentorship, you only know what you know and you shouldn't destroy others beliefs because they learned from a different mentor.

by The Alma Mater
I do hope you realise your list includes people like EInstein, Darwin and Galilei - people who, as their knowledge progressed, started to actively contradict the teachings of Christianity and renounced their faith - though they did remain spiritual.

I do hope you realize that you just contradicted yourself in your own sentence to prove me wrong.

First, yes Galileo was denounced by Catholicism, his Church, but that doesn't mean he denounced his faith.

Secondly, Einstein was as you said, still spiritual, so yeah I'm still right.

No, none of their physics formulas or their star gazings or their adaptation principles contradict religion at all.

This is the real issue. None of you guys can rise above your conclusions about religion even when vastly different religious people sit here and tell you that no, not all religious people believe science is evil.

Look, I think that we've reached a point in this discussion where we both realize that this is getting nowhere. You guys will still believe your general comments about religion and you'll still believe that religion is horrible and you'll still think that all religious people are stupid and hate science or whatever, but none of that is true and I don't know how many more times I have to point out that.

Science does not contradict religion especially Christianity largely. Science has never and will never make the discover that there is no God, but that doesn't mean there is no God (or that there is ).

I just wish that someone on here would realize that it is vastly ridiculous for you to want to take a person's right away to use their own imagination, their own mind, and their own conclusion skills to come to their own beliefs. Look, neither Religion nor Science are infallible we all know that. But, neither should have the right nor do they to take away someone's decision.

Everyone should be able to decide for themselves. Everyone. No one should have either pushed on them in schools, in public, in life, nothing. Yes, I know that it will, but no one on here, as we are all normal everyday people, should want to aide in that debauchery.

Freedom is freedom. Plain and simple. If you don't want others to believe what they want then you don't believe in freedom. And you also are a walking hypocrite. You want to believe what you want, but you don't want others to believe what they want because somehow even though you know less than 1% of the population on Earth it inconveniences you for people to disagree (and don't give me that stupid dragon, or pink unicorn, or invisible powerpuff girls or whatever. That's a mental condition plain and simple. I think sometimes atheists have it stuck in their ass that religion doesn't need evidence to believe something. We can just believe. Whereas you can't everything has to be concrete and thus you don't really believe in much. Which is sad because it limits your life experience and your imagination. I don't feel sorry for you because you believe it and if it works for you great, it doesn't work for me and I don't think you should look down upon me because I use religion to make myself better.

In addition, I'm only going to say this one more time.

If you guys don't UNDERSTAND the difference between oppression and criticism I would be happy to explain it to no avail for the six hundredth time. And I would also like to point out that if after all the years humans have been oppressing others in all countries across the world you do not believe in oppression then you can't be helped. Sorry, but you are too far gone from normal society if you don't understand criticism vs. oppression on this thread since we have been talking about it for like 3 weeks now. Please look back at previous posts and read it very carefully maybe you'll get it then. If all you can say is your little jabs at oh religious people claim oppression when I'm just telling them they're dumb then don't because plenty of damn criticizers on here have said that (even though that's not a criticism its a statement of idiocy and non-educatedness). No, for the last time, saying you don't believe and listing your reasons is not oppression that, students, is criticism. Saying let's take away people's rights to believe what they want (a.k.a. removing the "retrograde" known as religion) is oppression.

Please, live and let live. What's one man's garbage is another man's treasure.

I just read something that is so true. Elie Wiesel (look him up if you don't know him) his bio says this:

"...though religious conflicts are born of myths, those myths endure because they bring people together."

[The Alma Mater]

by The Alma Mater
I do hope you realise your list includes people like EInstein, Darwin and Galilei - people who, as their knowledge progressed, started to actively contradict the teachings of Christianity and renounced their faith - though they did remain spiritual.

I do hope you realize that you just contradicted yourself in your own sentence to prove me wrong.

Nope. I said they renounced their *christianity*. Not that they were atheists. There is no contradiction there.

No, none of their physics formulas or their star gazings or their adaptation principles contradict religion at all.

Not religion in general, no. But they do contradict speficic religious teachings, or dogma.
So indeed, while science and religion in general are not incompatible - specific science and specific religions often are.

[Deus Malum]

Humans are hard-wired to believe in something,points me an atheist ancients civilization.

most atheist wants feel themself parts of an "elite"

Ancient civilizations also widely believed the earth was a flat disc, and that going too far off in one direction would cause you to fall off.

Ancient civilizations are entitled to be wrong about a great many thing. And they are.

[Bottle]

We don't think our beliefs are baseless because, like you we see through our eyes and with our brain. Therefore, your convictions are just as strong as ours and we see lots of evidence where you see none and we see lots of issues where you see none. That's what no one here seems to get.

Speaking purely for myself, it's not that I don't "get" you, it's that I don't agree with you.

When a Christian friend of mine says, "Look at that beautiful sunset, that is evidence of God!" she is wrong. The existence of the sunset is not evidence of God. The fact that she "sees it that way" does not make her right.

The fact that you have an opinion doesn't mean you are right. The fact that you think one thing is evidence of another does not make it so. Doesn't make it NOT so, either, of course, but if you want to claim to have evidence for something then you have to actually back that up with something more than "because I feel that way." At least you do if you want your perspective to carry any weight with people who aren't yourself.

If you project yourself into another person, empathy, then you may realize that different people are different and they can believe something you don't, its okay and there isn't anything bad about it. In fact, religion "saves" a lot of people's lives.

That's a completely different subject. I think religion is, on the whole, harmful, dishonorable, and unworthy. I think superstition is weak and silly. But I don't have any problem admitting that there are good reasons why people end up believing in religions or superstitions, or that religious belief can make some people feel good or be happier. I don't deny that religious belief can spur people to do some cool things.

It's quite possible to believe religion/superstition is a bad thing while also having plenty of empathy for religious people.

Like that guy before who said religion should be removed. I bet he says religious people as a whole, but he can't comprehend nor look in the faces of each and every one of those millions of men, women, and children and tell them that we are taking your right to believe what you want away. He couldn't because he's just all talk. He wouldn't be able stand before the masses and declare his dictatorship.

That doesn't make any sense. You just said, above, that the problem is a lack of empathy with religious people. If he lacks empathy, he won't have any problem taking religion away from religious people. He'd only have a problem doing that if he was able to empathize with people for whom losing religion would really suck.

This is the real issue. None of you guys can rise above your conclusions about religion even when vastly different religious people sit here and tell you that no, not all religious people believe science is evil.

Of course not all religious people believe science is evil. Most people here aren't claiming that.

There's a big difference between saying RELIGION is anti-science and saying RELIGIOUS PEOPLE are anti-science.

Here's a parallel: Christianity, for most of its history, supported the practice of slavery. Yet, a great many of the first American abolitionists were Christians. CHRISTIANITY, as a faith/institution, supported something, yet CHRISTIAN PEOPLE did not. This is because religious people, like everyone else, can pick and choose what parts of a belief system they agree with.

Science does not contradict religion especially Christianity largely.

Yes, it does, in a great many places. The only way to deny that is if you're going to pick and choose specifically only those bits of Christianity which don't conflict with science, and ignore the centuries of counter-examples.

Science contradicts religion all the time, always has. That doesn't mean it's impossible to resolve the conflicts, or that it's impossible to be both pro-religion and pro-science, but it does mean that it's dishonest and counterproductive to pretend there's no conflict in the first place.

Science has never and will never make the discover that there is no God, but that doesn't mean there is no God (or that there is ).

As soon as religion generates a testable hypothesis of God, a scientist will test it.

It's empty to claim that science can't disprove something that you aren't even willing/able to define.

I just wish that someone on here would realize that it is vastly ridiculous for you to want to take a person's right away to use their own imagination, their own mind, and their own conclusion skills to come to their own beliefs.

Oh come off it. 90% of religious people belong to precisely the same religious sect as their parents. Not just the same religion, but the same SECT. That means that 90% of religious people honestly think that, by accident of birth, they just HAPPENED to be born into the right religion.

Let's not kid ourselves about the degree of imagination that is typically employed in this case. Religion is like one's taste for food; there's a degree of individual choice involved, but it's far, far more strongly directed by one's environment, one's upbringing, and factors that have nothing to do with conscious choice.

If you guys don't UNDERSTAND the difference between oppression and criticism I would be happy to explain it to no avail for the six hundredth time. And I would also like to point out that if after all the years humans have been oppressing others in all countries across the world you do not believe in oppression then you can't be helped. Sorry, but you are too far gone from normal society if you don't understand criticism vs. oppression on this thread since we have been talking about it for like 3 weeks now. Please look back at previous posts and read it very carefully maybe you'll get it then. If all you can say is your little jabs at oh religious people claim oppression when I'm just telling them they're dumb then don't because plenty of damn criticizers on here have said that (even though that's not a criticism its a statement of idiocy and non-educatedness). No, for the last time, saying you don't believe and listing your reasons is not oppression that, students, is criticism. Saying let's take away people's rights to believe what they want (a.k.a. removing the "retrograde" known as religion) is oppression.

All of which completely overlooks the fact that saying "The world would be better without religion" doesn't remotely equate to "I think all religious people should be oppressed."

I work every day to help build a world free from religion. But I don't do it by oppressing anybody, taking away anybody's freedoms, or forcing anybody to believe in anything they don't want to believe in. Chill the hell out.

"...though religious conflicts are born of myths, those myths endure because they bring people together."

Well, yeah. Racism does the same thing, it brings together people who view their racial identity as a "tribe." I think you're missing the point of what he was saying.

It's like how sports teams "bring people together," by fostering inter-team competition. Red Sox fans come together in shared hatred of the Yankees. And so forth.

[Treznor]

Over the weekend I had some very good-natured missionaries knock on my door wanting to tell me about God. When they asked me, I pointed out that I have no reason to believe in any gods. They then informed me that God is like the wind: just because we can't see it doesn't mean we don't know it's there.

I pointed out that if I seal an aquarium and heat one end while cooling the other, I'll create wind. Does that then make me the God of the aquarium?

They left after that.

[Pope Joan]

Humans are hard-wired to believe in something,points me an atheist ancients civilization.

most atheist wants feel themself parts of an "elite"

Anthropologist Walter Burkert of Austria contends that this is true, we are biologically hard wired for religion. He compares it to early pervasive evidence of such things as art or even language.

"In Creation of the Sacred, he examines religious universalia in order to account for the ubiquity and persistence of the phenomenon of religion and to produce a general theory of religion. The themes and problems he has examined in previous books have led him to the claim in Creation of the Sacred that religion can be traced to origins in biology, and that religion derives from biology and language as genes and culture co-evolve."

He tries to demonstrate an evolutionary explanation for this.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 93c3004678

He is not flattering about religion as a social force, saying it is conservative and tends to support any ruling hierarchy, and justify self sacrifice. So I doubt he has an ecclesiological axe to grind.

[Topid]

So the OP was angry that he had to watch someone practice their religion? Being near someone practicing religion is not the same as being forced to practice their religion... But eh, why think, when we could just be angry at anything with the word religion in it? ...