Islam is of the Devil?

[vol4eva]

I am a Christian and nothing will ever shake my faith. You can not tell me that this is by chance and that there is not someone out there who does not care about me and listens too my prayers.

Yes, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life!!!

 

[volinbham]

If everything else is equal, the practical benefits attributed to scientific inquiry provide a reason that separates it from the other.

There are certainly practical benefits to religion and religious belief as well.

 

[MontereyVol]

The Different Arabic Versions of the Qur'an Koran Quran

I think we are both thinking of same thing. There are different versions based on the people who transcribed it to text. Then after that there are dmbed down Qurans when translated to English. In fact sometimes it may say in Arabic "chop his head off" and then in the English version it wills say punish him appropriately lol. It was an intentional thing done to appease English speakers.

But I think you are referring more to the multiple versions in the link based on who interrpretted and transcribed.

The rift is amongst the Scholars of Islam (albeit a very silent group) The Koran is broken into sections and what makes it important is the order in which you read. The final section is what dictates the way in which the Muslims feel is how their lives must be.

Some scholars believe the book was "re-ordered" to suit the warlords some time ago and that copy is what is being used today. It is widely believed that Muhammad in his final years was peace loving and taught tolerance of other religions.

 

[SycloneJoe]

[

Wrong, Your information is not even slightly correct. I suggest going and taking a real history class. I am guessing you saw "The Passion of Christ" and thought it was a documentary. The Romans were in control of all things in Israel at that point. The Jewish high Priest was in fact Roman (there was a second high priest underground who was actually Jewish)-The King was put in place by Romans as he was Roman nobility again not Jewish. Thus we were fighting a revolutionary war against them. This is were the term Zealots comes from. The Romans had your boy crucified. It is documented by Josephus a Roman historian-former Jew. Although he was one of 5 Rabbis crucified that day and nothing special was noted about him. All other stories are fantasies created by men who believed Judaism had to die for Christianity to thrive-it was called the withering stump theory created by Paul-who was exiled from Israel himself as a fanatic. There is not one shred of evidence or circumstance that should lead anyone to believe Jews killed your boy. It is utter nonsense.

BTW Pharisees and Sadducees really just describe classes the former the working class and the latter the white collar nobility class. Anything else you wanna know you have to pay for I am a Jew.

I know all about history. The Sadducees and Pharisees were the ruling classes of Israel.
The Sadducees were white collar. They were wealthy and held positions including chief priests and high priest and they held the majority of the Sanhedrin. They did not believe in any resurrection of the dead, any afterlife (they thought that your soul died at death) and they didn’t believe in the existence of a spiritual world (angels, demons, spirits, and so on).

Pharisees were mostly blue collar (the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus was a Pharisee). They were a minority in the Sanhedrin and held a minority number of positions as priests. They did have a majority of the decision making power of the Sanhedrin because they had the support of the people. They believed that God controlled all things, and that he gave individuals free will. They believed in the resurrection of the dead, afterlife, and the existence of a spiritual world.

The Pharisees gave oral law equal authority to the Law of the Books of Moses. The Sadducees believed all the authority was of the written Word of God and the Law of the Books of Moses. The Sadducees focused more on politics than religion.

The Pharisees and Sadducees are the ones who accused Jesus of blasphemy and sent him to the Romans to be killed. They wanted him dead because he was a threat to their power and way of life. The Roman Governor (Not King) Ponchus Pilate did not want to put Him to death. Pilate's wife had a dream about Jesus being the son of God. Pilate left it up to the people of Judea who decided to kill Jesus instead of Barabbas.

Based on the date of Herod's death in 4 BC, historians believe that Jesus's death took place between 27 and 36 AD The Pharisees refused to take the oath of allegiance to the emperor and in 66 AD they led the nation in the first revolutionary war against the Romans.


BTW...Jewbaccah, I have no hatred for anyone Jewish or of any other belief. Only love. Although we disagree I respect your beliefs and appreciate your knowledge and insight in this discussion. :thumbsup:

 

[rjd970]

There are certainly practical benefits to religion and religious belief as well.

Sure. But it doesn't approach the level of practicality that scientific inquiry offers.

 

[volinbham]

Sure. But it doesn't approach the level of practicality that scientific inquiry offers.

While many like to pit religion vs science and emphasize how religion held back science they conveniently forget the role of religion in fostering scientific inquiry.

The notion that religion and science are competing world views and should be judged by the same criteria (e.g. practical benefits) misses the point that they are more akin to complementary perspectives with unique contributions.

So - is scientific inquiry more practical? Perhaps depending on the notion of practicality. Is scientific inquiry a bigger contribution? Well now we need a debate on what qualifies as contribution to mankind. Clearly religion fills a specific set of needs in mankind. Likewise, it may yield answers/knowledge that Western-style scientific inquiry cannot.

 

[Gramps]

Sure. But it doesn't approach the level of practicality that scientific inquiry offers.

What has scientific inquiry proven when it comes to the big bang and the evoluton of man ?

Both are only theories.
Scientist can do an inquiry on anything and come up with some kind of theory.

Where is the proof of the big bang?

Where is the proof man evolved from a monkey?

 

[rjd970]

What has scientific inquiry proven when it comes to the big bang and the evoluton of man ?

Both are only theories.
Scientist can do an inquiry on anything and come up with some kind of theory.

Where is the proof of the big bang?

Where is the proof man evolved from a monkey?

What has religion proven with respect to anything?

 

[turambar85]

What has scientific inquiry proven when it comes to the big bang and the evoluton of man ?

Both are only theories.
Scientist can do an inquiry on anything and come up with some kind of theory.

Where is the proof of the big bang?

Where is the proof man evolved from a monkey?

Even if science cannot offer a formal proof at this point as regards either hypothesis (though, please, do not mischaracterize the theory. No scientist says that we evolved from monkeys, but that we share an evolutionary history with them), science can tell us a coherent story (especially about evolution) that does not contain any logical reaches, logically follows, and could have happened given the laws of nature and our world's structure. They can paint a plausible picture based on reason, experience, and extrapolations from fact. Religion, on these subjects, cannot do this.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is a coherent picture that makes sense, and, as some would say, is the only possible explanation for the existence of the life on this (or any) world.

 

[rjd970]

While many like to pit religion vs science and emphasize how religion held back science they conveniently forget the role of religion in fostering scientific inquiry.

The notion that religion and science are competing world views and should be judged by the same criteria (e.g. practical benefits) misses the point that they are more akin to complementary perspectives with unique contributions.

So - is scientific inquiry more practical? Perhaps depending on the notion of practicality. Is scientific inquiry a bigger contribution? Well now we need a debate on what qualifies as contribution to mankind. Clearly religion fills a specific set of needs in mankind. Likewise, it may yield answers/knowledge that Western-style scientific inquiry cannot.

Religion fostering science? Serious? You can bring up the canard that the Catholic Church is misunderstood in the whole Galileo affair and what not...but religion has consistently shown that if a scientific discovery refutes a specific religious belief in the least it will be hostile toward the said belief. Evolution is the big one here, and discoveries about our cosmos over the last 500 years is another. The religious simply don't want to accept that in the whole scheme of things we are nothing more than an insignificant lifeform living on a tiny speck in what amounts to be the middle of nowhere in the universe....because believing so makes the notion that everything else being created specifically with us in mind becomes harder to accept.

Argue that all you want, but that is the sad truth of the matter. You don't seriously think that if Darwin lived in the time of Galileo he would have been allowed to publish his research do you? In all liklihood, he would have been imprisoned, if not much worse.

What has religion contributed to mankind? "Notion of practicality"? What other notion of practicalities are there? Science is more practical, period. Let the priests go find new ways to pray for rain, it's the guy that found better irrigation techniques by studying water tables that really benefitted his fellow man.

I also think this idea of "complimentary perspectives" is a feeble attempt to find the middle road and sqeeze out a place so religion feels useful. The whole charity bit religion touts is about the best example there is, and even that doesn't cut the mustard as differentiating it from non-believers....and is more than offset by the tyrannical and bloody history it has to get it there. Try and name me one thing a believer can do that a non-believer can't with respect to benefiting humanity. Then, as an excercise, find me one thing that science has discovered that benefited humanity that otherwise would have never been discovered if we were content with the explanation "God did it, created it, controlled it, ect".

 

[Jewbaccah]

I know all about history. The Sadducees and Pharisees were the ruling classes of Israel.
The Sadducees were white collar. They were wealthy and held positions including chief priests and high priest and they held the majority of the Sanhedrin. They did not believe in any resurrection of the dead, any afterlife (they thought that your soul died at death) and they didn’t believe in the existence of a spiritual world (angels, demons, spirits, and so on).

Pharisees were mostly blue collar (the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus was a Pharisee). They were a minority in the Sanhedrin and held a minority number of positions as priests. They did have a majority of the decision making power of the Sanhedrin because they had the support of the people. They believed that God controlled all things, and that he gave individuals free will. They believed in the resurrection of the dead, afterlife, and the existence of a spiritual world.

The Pharisees gave oral law equal authority to the Law of the Books of Moses. The Sadducees believed all the authority was of the written Word of God and the Law of the Books of Moses. The Sadducees focused more on politics than religion.

The Pharisees and Sadducees are the ones who accused Jesus of blasphemy and sent him to the Romans to be killed. They wanted him dead because he was a threat to their power and way of life. The Roman Governor (Not King) Ponchus Pilate did not want to put Him to death. Pilate's wife had a dream about Jesus being the son of God. Pilate left it up to the people of Judea who decided to kill Jesus instead of Barabbas.

Based on the date of Herod's death in 4 BC, historians believe that Jesus's death took place between 27 and 36 AD The Pharisees refused to take the oath of allegiance to the emperor and in 66 AD they led the nation in the first revolutionary war against the Romans.


BTW...Jewbaccah, I have no hatred for anyone Jewish or of any other belief. Only love. Although we disagree I respect your beliefs and appreciate your knowledge and insight in this discussion. :thumbsup:

I cannot believe you actually believe that. That the Romans who were undeniably in complete control just said hey out of the 100 or so people we are crucifying I am going to let you pic to save one cuz its passover. Although, at this point in history Jesus has little pull or notoriety that he was then the one who would get picked? And then assuming that is true. That somehow because they picked a zealot(a rebel not a robber) instead of an unknown religious figure they are to blame. Hmmm...and then that would make Romans look better yeah who actually became the Christians and approved the Gospels. So let me get this right if I put a gun to someone's wife's head and say pick between her and this guy over here. And you pick your wife. Did you kill the other guy? I am free of blame now and you sir killed that dude. Seriously dude, I am always in aww when people repeat this false story that I have heard before. The fact that they actually believe it one and then the fact even if believed it means the Jews killed Jesus.


It is a fact this story was spread with anti-Semitic intent in the early church. Thus every time you spread this lie you are repeating the lies of men who had evil intent. So the high priest like I said like the evidence clearly shows was not even Jewish. In your Gospels it is he who declares that Cesar is my only king and he who is in control of the crowd, lol. He was hated by the crowd. He was considered a Roman not a Jew and a pawn. And the guy they picked to live was he not worthy of life? I mean seriously the only reason in a man's heart for believing this story is hate. If you believe this you might as well believe we have horns and drink the blood of your children. You can respond nicely all you want. Believing that the Jews killed Jesus is like believing it is the people of Tibet's fault when China commits inhumane acts.

It is not as if at this point in history we were not recording the events that occur. Unfortunately because at the time Jesus was so insignificant much of his doing is unrecorded. However, the details of what was going on during that period are recorded. Including how the Romans controlled the Jewish population with A Roman high priest. The battles that were fought by the Zealots in this period. Including the most know story Masada. It is not speculation. If the Gospel story is to be believes as is then in fact it must be assumed that the Priest mentioned is a Roman and not a Jew. There is no other possibility.

The reality is the Gospels were altered and there were many copies before the final copy was made. Romans hated Jews for the rebellions. They lost several legions. And hated being associated with a defeated people. They in fact erased the history of defeated legions. Thus, the story as written is likely an attempt to make Jesus seem less Jewish and put the Romans in a better light.

But, even taking it as is the facts are being forced to pick between lives makes no man a killer. :zeitung_lesen:

 

[volinbham]

Religion fostering science? Serious? You can bring up the canard that the Catholic Church is misunderstood in the whole Galileo affair and what not...but religion has consistently shown that if a scientific discovery refutes a specific religious belief in the least it will be hostile toward the said belief. Evolution is the big one here, and discoveries about our cosmos over the last 500 years is another. The religious simply don't want to accept that in the whole scheme of things we are nothing more than an insignificant lifeform living on a tiny speck in what amounts to be the middle of nowhere in the universe....because believing so makes the notion that everything else being created specifically with us in mind becomes harder to accept.

You are forgetting that religion organized and financed a tremendous amount of scientific discovery in fields ranging from architecture to chemistry to medicine, etc. While religious views at times attempted to discredit scientific findings, the truth is that because religion was essentially the organizer of human activity and accumulator of wealth - religion had a major role in putting resources to work that fostered scientific discovery.

Argue that all you want, but that is the sad truth of the matter. You don't seriously think that if Darwin lived in the time of Galileo he would have been allowed to publish his research do you? In all liklihood, he would have been imprisoned, if not much worse.

See above - while religion was not completely open-minded to scientific findings, it in fact was the facilitator both through education and financing of a tremendous amount of scientific progress. In effect, religion in the past served as a massive government project that advanced scientific knowledge.

What has religion contributed to mankind? "Notion of practicality"? What other notion of practicalities are there? Science is more practical, period. Let the priests go find new ways to pray for rain, it's the guy that found better irrigation techniques by studying water tables that really benefitted his fellow man.

Social connections and the role they play are quite practical. Religion has had an immeasurable role in providing unifying themes for social connections. Other instances include massive efforts at education, direct aid, etc. All these are "practical" and needed.

I also think this idea of "complimentary perspectives" is a feeble attempt to find the middle road and sqeeze out a place so religion feels useful.

I don't know how to respond to this other than to say I'm not surprised at your statement here. You appear to be the one who cannot see beyond a science disproving religion perspective.


The whole charity bit religion touts is about the best example there is, and even that doesn't cut the mustard as differentiating it from non-believers....and is more than offset by the tyrannical and bloody history it has to get it there.

Disagree on many fronts here - particularly that the bad has outweighed the good. Given your narrow view of religion I can see where you might derive that view but it is not empirically verified in any way.

Try and name me one thing a believer can do that a non-believer can't with respect to benefiting humanity.

Can and do are different things - this is why I say they coexist. You cannot deny that religion has been the most significant force for social connections and shared understandings in the history of mankind. Must there be religion? Probably not but to date the substitute social glue has not shown it's face.

Then, as an excercise, find me one thing that science has discovered that benefited humanity that otherwise would have never been discovered if we were content with the explanation "God did it, created it, controlled it, ect".

Your last statement is the continual straw man that religion eschews scientific explanation. If you truly believe that, it sheds a pretty clear light on why you are so anti-religion.

 

[Gramps]

QUOTE=turambar85;2490029] Even if science cannot offer a formal proof at this point as regards either hypothesis

As I said it's just a theory...

 

[Gramps]

What has religion proven with respect to anything?

I did not mention religion in my post, however in response to you question.

There are many things in the Bible that have been proven to be true.

The big bang theory and the evolution of man are nothing but theories.

What has been proven by either theory?

 

[rjd970]

I simply don't buy what your peddling here. Paint me as narrow minded and hopelessly mistaken all you want. In terms of the cost-benefit (and even without the cost) to humanity, the distinction is clear.

You are forgetting that religion organized and financed a tremendous amount of scientific discovery in fields ranging from architecture to chemistry to medicine, etc. While religious views at times attempted to discredit scientific findings, the truth is that because religion was essentially the organizer of human activity and accumulator of wealth - religion had a major role in putting resources to work that fostered scientific discovery.

I think you are drastically underestimating the bolded. Any discovery refuting specific religious belief is met with hostility. Anything that helps accumulate wealth, feed worship egos, and maintain control of the masses will of course be funded. Giving religion credit when the endeavours turned out to be useful is a stretch. They certainly weren't out looking for better way to cloth, feed, or shelter people...or the least bit interested in how and why things work the way they do, to them, such simple questions already had a simple answer. It was who could build the biggest cathedral and grandest buidlings. How they got there was a little significance.

See above - while religion was not completely open-minded to scientific findings, it in fact was the facilitator both through education and financing of a tremendous amount of scientific progress. In effect, religion in the past served as a massive government project that advanced scientific knowledge.

What education and financing of scientific progress are you referring to? Name one religiously funded project in history that resulted in any significant increase in scientific knowledge.

Social connections and the role they play are quite practical. Religion has had an immeasurable role in providing unifying themes for social connections. Other instances include massive efforts at education, direct aid, etc. All these are "practical" and needed.

If by "social connections" you mean continual sources of conflict and bloodshed, then I agree. What efforts at education?

I don't know how to respond to this other than to say I'm not surprised at your statement here. You appear to be the one who cannot see beyond a science disproving religion perspective.

Imagine a world without any scientific advancement. Now imagine a world without any religion. Which one is really better, and whether you think it is complimentary or not, at the end of the day is religion even needed?

Disagree on many fronts here - particularly that the bad has outweighed the good. Given your narrow view of religion I can see where you might derive that view but it is not empirically verified in any way.

Care to compare the body count each has caused?

Can and do are different things - this is why I say they coexist. You cannot deny that religion has been the most significant force for social connections and shared understandings in the history of mankind. Must there be religion? Probably not but to date the substitute social glue has not shown it's face.

Given the divisive wedge religion has played throughout history, this is of no surprise.

Your last statement is the continual straw man that religion eschews scientific explanation. If you truly believe that, it sheds a pretty clear light on why you are so anti-religion.

It is not a straw man. There is no doubt that if we were content to let religion define all matters of life we would not be where we are today.

 

[rjd970]

I did not mention religion in my post, however in response to you question.

There are many things in the Bible that have been proven to be true.

The big bang theory and the evolution of man are nothing but theories.

What has been proven by either theory?

Who said a theory is there to prove anything? It doesn't surprise me that you would ask such a question or even understand why it doesn't make sense.

And as a side note, there has been more in the Bible that has been categorically discredited....at least the religiously significant parts.

 

[MontereyVol]

Who said a theory is there to prove anything? It doesn't surprise me that you would ask such a question or even understand why it doesn't make sense.

And as a side note, there has been more in the Bible that has been categorically discredited....at least the religiously significant parts.

Such as?

 

[volinbham]

I simply don't buy what your peddling here. Paint me as narrow minded and hopelessly mistaken all you want. In terms of the cost-benefit (and even without the cost) to humanity, the distinction is clear.



I think you are drastically underestimating the bolded. Any discovery refuting specific religious belief is met with hostility. Anything that helps accumulate wealth, feed worship egos, and maintain control of the masses will of course be funded.

A bit overstated don't you think?


Giving religion credit when the endeavours turned out to be useful is a stretch. They certainly weren't out looking for better way to cloth, feed, or shelter people...or the least bit interested in how and why things work the way they do, to them, such simple questions already had a simple answer. It was who could build the biggest cathedral and grandest buidlings. How they got there was a little significance.

Cynical much?

What education and financing of scientific progress are you referring to? Name one religiously funded project in history that resulted in any significant increase in scientific knowledge.

Throughout the ages projects undertaken by various religions have yielded enumerable scientific discoveries. To take one example, I'd suggest that architectural and engineering knowledge grew tremendously as a result of projects funded/created by various religions.

If by "social connections" you mean continual sources of conflict and bloodshed, then I agree. What efforts at education?

You believe conflict and bloodshed would not have occurred without religion?

Various religions have been the providers of education throughout the ages and continue to be.

Imagine a world without any scientific advancement. Now imagine a world without any religion. Which one is really better, and whether you think it is complimentary or not, at the end of the day is religion even needed?

I can't answer if it's needed or not. You are making a huge assumption that humankind doesn't rely on religion in some way - perhaps they do perhaps they don't. We certainly haven't functioned without it in our history - it is a leap of faith to suggest it is completely unecessary.

Care to compare the body count each has caused?

Seriously? Was it not scientific discovery that created all the weaponry?






It is not a straw man. There is no doubt that if we were content to let religion define all matters of life we would not be where we are today.

The strawman is that religion doesn't define all matters in life. Being religious in no way precludes scientific inquiry or discovery. To suggest that they can't coexist because religion wants to use "God did it - the end" as the explanation for everything is a strawman in the purest sense.

 

[hndog609]

rjd970
Something you seem a little over the top with is some kind of all encompassing idea of "religious" views and science. For instance, to read your posts one would think you would place the majority of Christians in the same line of thinking of faith healers and snake handlers. This simply is not a factual assumption. Another example is that there's lots of noise about how "Christians" believe fanatically that the earth is only some 6,000 years old. While I am certain there are a number, perhaps even many, that believe this I don't personally know a single one.

There are LOTS of Christian doctors out there. In fact, it is often the religious "calling" to help their fellow man that steered lots of them in that direction to begin with.

I think your definition of the "religious" types might be biased a bit more toward the fringe element. I agree with VB when arguing I see very little resistance to bona fide* science conflicting with religion. At least, not the majority of the Christian community.

*I say bona fide since I think there is a lot of "junk science" out there. I'm talking across the board, not just areas the religious might find objection. Actually, if I smell even a hint of political influence I become skeptical then and there.

 

[rjd970]

A bit overstated don't you think?

No. It is what it is. I don't think religion is as benign as advertised.

You believe conflict and bloodshed would not have occurred without religion?

I believe the explicitely religious ones wouldn't have, for starters. Crusades, ongoing violence in the middle east, ethnic cleansing from Bosnia to Baghdad. And in cases where violence was founded over something else, religion has more often than not served to excite the situation.

This says nothing of the role religion played in the countless lives lost to the imaginary crimes of heresy, witchcraft, and other delusions.

Find me one...just one...war fought over competing scientific doctrines.

Call it overstated or whatever, but the good does not outweigh the bad here, especially when compared with the alternative system of thought and the results it has yielded. Absolutely this world would be a better place without any religion of any kind.

Seriously? Was it not scientific discovery that created all the weaponry?

If we are comparing body count tallied on both sides, your point is mute. If conflict is going to happen, such weaponary saves more lives than it kills. Religion was the explicite cause of the something like the crusades, advancements in armor and weaponary is the result of science. The better the weapon, the quicker the conflict can be brought to an end...which saves more lives on both sides. The atomic bomb is a prime example. Precision guided technology is another. Investing huge amounts of capital into defense funding ultimately saves lives, and at the same time, produces beneficial applications for commercial use.

Again, find me a "scientific war" in history and I think your point has more weight.

 

[volinbham]

If we are comparing body count tallied on both sides, your point is mute. If conflict is going to happen, such weaponary saves more lives than it kills. Religion was the explicite cause of the something like the crusades, advancements in armor and weaponary is the result of science.

Advancements in armor and weaponary (according to your view of bloody religion) were motivated by religion - how then can religion be anti-"science" if it was the very catalyst that drove scientific findings? You can't separate the two here.

The better the weapon, the quicker the conflict can be brought to an end...which saves more lives on both sides. The atomic bomb is a prime example. Precision guided technology is another. Investing huge amounts of capital into defense funding ultimately saves lives, and at the same time, produces beneficial applications for commercial use.

Again, find me a "scientific war" in history and I think your point has more weight.

Again - the problem here stems from looking at these as conflicting ideas. In your context I have no idea what a "scientific war" even means.

It appears you are viewing science as a means of knowing things. Okay - fine by me.

Religion is not a way of knowing things - it is a vehicle for social connection and trying to understand a few very specific things (e.g. creation, after-life, why are we here, etc.).

 

[rjd970]

rjd970
Something you seem a little over the top with is some kind of all encompassing idea of "religious" views and science. For instance, to read your posts one would think you would place the majority of Christians in the same line of thinking of faith healers and snake handlers. This simply is not a factual assumption. Another example is that there's lots of noise about how "Christians" believe fanatically that the earth is only some 6,000 years old. While I am certain there are a number, perhaps even many, that believe this I don't personally know a single one.

There are LOTS of Christian doctors out there. In fact, it is often the religious "calling" to help their fellow man that steered lots of them in that direction to begin with.

I think your definition of the "religious" types might be biased a bit more toward the fringe element. I agree with VB when arguing I see very little resistance to bona fide* science conflicting with religion. At least, not the majority of the Christian community.

*I say bona fide since I think there is a lot of "junk science" out there. I'm talking across the board, not just areas the religious might find objection. Actually, if I smell even a hint of political influence I become skeptical then and there.

Perhaps I should qualify. While I think the thought process that leads someone to the conclusion that snake healing is sound healthcare and Jesus actually died for our sins are cut from the same cloth, I understand there are differences. For instance, I don't lie awake at night worrying about what Quakers are plotting like I would about Islamic fundamentalists. This isn't a mistake.

Obviously there are different outcomes depending on the religious belief, but the process of justfication is one in the same. Good people will be good. Bad people will be bad. Religious and supersitious reasoning will undoubtedly (as it already has in history) get good people to do bad things, and think it's noble. I think this is a dangerous proposition for society to have to deal with. The stakes are too high. Pretty soon we are going to have somebody who legitimately believes in the metaphysics of martydom armed with something a lot more sinister than small explosives or hijacked airliners.

 

[volinbham]

Perhaps I should qualify. While I think the thought process that leads someone to the conclusion that snake healing is sound healthcare and Jesus actually died for our sins are cut from the same cloth, I understand there are differences. For instance, I don't lie awake at night worrying about what Quakers are plotting like I would about Islamic fundamentalists. This isn't a mistake.

Obviously there are different outcomes depending on the religious belief, but the process of justfication is one in the same. Good people will be good. Bad people will be bad. Religious and supersitious reasoning will undoubtedly (as it already has in history) get good people to do bad things, and think it's noble. I think this is a dangerous proposition for society to have to deal with. The stakes are too high. Pretty soon we are going to have somebody who legitimately believes in the metaphysics of martydom armed with something a lot more sinister than small explosives or hijacked airliners.

Hmmm - like the Unibomber?

People who believe only in "science" do some pretty bad things to.

I think we'd have to put Hitler in the "science" crowd.

 

[TennTradition]

Hmmm - like the Unibomber?

People who believe only in "science" do some pretty bad things to.

I think we'd have to put Hitler in the "science" crowd.

Wasn't the unibomber a big anti-technology guy? While he was a mathematician, I would not call him someone who worships science...but maybe that is the engineer in me connecting science and technology.

 

[rjd970]

Advancements in armor and weaponary (according to your view of bloody religion) were motivated by religion - how then can religion be anti-"science" if it was the very catalyst that drove scientific findings? You can't separate the two here.

First, the point was about body count, of which you don't have a leg to stand on here.

Second, my point is prefaced with "if conflict is going to happen". Without religion, the need to save lives or end the conflict wouldn't have been needed in the first place. Religion certainly didn't turn to the early defense engineers out of healthy scientific inquiry. I look at it as more of science bailing them out on that one. The cause of the conflict in the first place is primary, weather it be religious, political, social, or economic. Anyway, the advancements certainly weren't made for scientific reasons. IMO, that separates the two.

Religion is not a way of knowing things - it is a vehicle for social connection and trying to understand a few very specific things (e.g. creation, after-life, why are we here, etc.).

There are plenty of other vehicles that accomplish those same things that don't have the associated baggage with them.