Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[Roflkopt3r]

I never understood why creationism and evolution couldn't be used together. Almost everyone leans to one side or the other, but very few actually come in the middle. Though I don't believe in anything god-like, it's still possible. Science and religion can coexist and it kinda has, no?

There simply is no need for creationism, why should we add something supernatural to a scientific world view?
There are several points which are required for a theory to be considered scientific, it's not possible to combine that with a fantasy book and say "whatever you find out, it only is that way, because God made it so".

Of course science has a limited horizon, how should it not have that? To make guesses beyond our horizon of knowledge isn't scientific at all, science is slowly progressing to make sure that it doesn't become unscientific.
So, many religious people instead say "We cannot understand the world scientifically, because it's too complex for us". But at the same time, they pretend not to have a horizon, because they make ultimate statements about the infinite (God). What a contradiction.

Imo arguing for religion in a scientific discussion is nothing else than the aversion of giving up a tradition.

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

The human sensory act of sight involves the brain processing incoming data received through the nervous system stimulated by incoming light received via the eye. While multiple organs are involved in sight, the English verb "to see" generally only references the actions carried out by the eye: taking in light to be processed as visual information.

All of this is wholly beside the point of this thread. So, please stop discussing the mechanics of sight and the semantics of the word "see."

.

Thank you for rephrasing what I said.And no this is not a seperate topic from religion, because a soul means there is god, and this topic proves that there is a soul which sees those data and images.
The human soul is totally seperated from the outside wolrd and the only mean of connection with it is our senses, and those senses are not perfect and sometimes could trick us which is actually a fact, the theory that I linked to earlier, says that our senses are programmed to percieve the outside world in a certain state which is presented to the human soul, so everything around us could as matter of fact be just illusions implanted in our heads, and the fact that those acts actually happened proves that there is a creator.

BTW I just want to point out that science and religion do co-exist, but it seems that science has become so biased by actually accepting that evolution which makes it go in one direction, so even if there is an astonishing proof that god exists, science will still dismiss it because that is not the result they hoped for which is actually there is no god.

 

[Drmke]

Thank you for rephrasing what I said.And no this is not a seperate topic from religion, because a soul means there is god, and this topic proves that there is a soul which sees those data and images.

I've never heard someone say the soul sees data and images. I've always heard it described as our, for lack of a better way of putting it, immortal self as opposed to our physical body which is mortal. Either way it doesn't make much sense to say the soul sees images as animals are capable of sight and they are generally considered to be soulless.

The human soul is totally seperated from the outside wolrd and the only mean of connection with it is our senses, and those senses are not perfect and sometimes could trick us which is actually a fact, the theory that I linked to earlier, says that our senses are programmed to percieve the outside world in a certain state which is presented to the human soul, so everything around us could as matter of fact be just illusions implanted in our heads, and the fact that those acts actually happened proves that there is a creator.

You are correct in saying that our senses do tend to trick us (a very good example of this is near-death experiences where the brain tricks itself into thinking its somewhere else instead of on death's door), and that we have no full-proof way of knowing what is truly reality. That is why we just assume the most parsimonious answer instead of inviting wild stories that make much less sense and accept the reality that we see

BTW I just want to point out that science and religion do co-exist, but it seems that science has become so biased by actually accepting that evolution which makes it go in one direction, so even if there is an astonishing proof that god exists, science will still dismiss it because that is not the result they hoped for which is actually there is no god.

Without evolution, ALL modern science (biology, chemistry, geography, physics, etc.) would completely fall apart. All use some form of evolution as their basis, and when examined from an unbiased standpoint, evolution makes perfect sense. Accepting evolution as true does not destroy any religion. Sure it means that God creating the world in seven days becomes apparently false, but instead of looking at it as false, one can simply look at it as a metaphor for God using what we refer to as evolution as a means to create all that we see.

Also, the vast majority of scientists are in fact religious, but regardless, there can never be proof whether or not a god does or does not exist. Proof is generally thought of as physical proof (as other forms tend to be unreliable), and since gods are beyond the physical realm, proof can never be obtained. Unless of course God shows himself in a 100% undeniable way which hasn't happen in six billion years so I won't hold my breath

 

[kkck]

^Agreed. It wouldn't even make sense to read a relgious text literally these days. Religious texts are by all intents and purposes thousands of years old. In the times they were written people spoke other languages and more importantly the way in which people talked on daily basis were different from now. You won't hear the same expressions, mannerisms and way of speaking now as you would one, two, or 6 thousand years ago. God is at large considered infinite in all regards however words of any known human language are nothing but inherently and terminally limited in what they can say so obviously things said in a different language thousands of years ago would probably not make sense nowadays. Taking a literal approach to religion these days would lead to the stoning of women with questionable reputation, executions for pagans and heresy and getting people rolled down windmill stones down a hill and we all know that is less than civilized these days. Heck, from what I understand at least in the past writting had to be considerably more poetic and exalting than what is demanded these days which is all the more reason not to take religious texts literally. What we should get from religious texts regarding creation is not God's 7 step recipe for making people but rather that God is a starting point for creation and life has inherent meaning by itself beyond what we could give it by ourselves (which is not to say we shouldn't work to makes our lives meaningful).

 

[juliadesusa]

I want to share one thing is that all religion are the equal if we have Faith on God.The GOD is only one I can say,No matter that you are from other religion we are just human beings nothing else our GOD is same in all over the world.No need of any Religion.

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

I want to share one thing is that all religion are the equal if we have Faith on God.The GOD is only one I can say,No matter that you are from other religion we are just human beings nothing else our GOD is same in all over the world.No need of any Religion.

No, christianity is corrupt, I'll tell you why

Song of songs in the bible endorses incest acts which is totally immoral.

The bible gives people permission to kill non believers.

There is no way this corrupt book could be the product of where morals came from in the first place.

Some religions are totall nonesense and some of them don't give equal rights to humans.

There is one last religion which rules by the absolute morality and law, and its called islam.

 

[Roflkopt3r]

Islam obviously can be interpreted differently as well, after all there is a noteworthy number of extremists or even terrorists who deduce their violence to rules of the Koran. And a much larger number of muslims who don't go that far, but still interpret the Koran in a very conservative, restricting way in which they severely discriminate against women or people of other beliefs.

Ok, I believe that the number of muslims who don't use the Koran that way but are rather pacifist and humanist is larger and that these interpretations of the Koran will prevail in the end. However, I don't see how you can say that the islam was objectively better than christianity or judaism.

Personally, I consider all religions to be outdated though. The reason for the western nations to be mostly more advanced in society and human rights is not that they were christian after all, but rather that they separated themselves from religion by a far distance. Science, intellect and reasonability are enough to replace religion.

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

Islam obviously can be interpreted differently as well, after all there is a noteworthy number of extremists or even terrorists who deduce their violence to rules of the Koran. And a much larger number of muslims who don't go that far, but still interpret the Koran in a very conservative, restricting way in which they severely discriminate against women or people of other beliefs.

Do you know what you're talking about ? this is exactly what every bonehead on youtube says, you talk without evidence like you actually know islam.

Do you have any proof ?

The noteworthy extrimists are a bunch of criminals and islam has nothing to do with it.

If a criminal kills while he is actually a christians it doesn't count he is still a killer.

But when a criminal happens to be a muslims he is just not only criminal but also a muslim.

You see the irony here.you've been brainwashed by the media, rednecks or scientists are all alike when it comes to their view on islam.

Some verses of our quran are related to an era or a past event that demanded the muslims to fight against the transgressions of their fellow pagan arabs who happend to enslave people and kill their own baby girls.

Islam freed the pagans from this not endorsed it, read before commenting ok. don't give me blunt statements

Some angry criminals who happen to be muslims are putting those verses related to that past era or an event to action, which is totally stupid and shows a gianormous degrees of ignorance.

 

[shaheer]

hei guys long time since i dropped by, me dad is severly sick so i cant be that regular
now @ rolfy
you are correct, we are the imperfect ones, some times we do interpret the books as per our intentions but we purposely leave whats against us, but that doesnt actually condems the religion. Rather it makes the person bad
Communism is said to be the manifestation of Evolution. Based on that can we say that Evolution os bad. NO we deal with it with our convictions like we did once i think you remember that one , and it was a very composed discussion where we respected each others belief. i am a muslim, you are not, i respect you and i am sure that you do the same; i am going according to the hadith "the one is the best of us who likes for his brother what he likes for himself", and according to scholars of the highest eminence like Imam An Nabvi it means universal brotherhood. the teaching if Islam is such
the general teaching of the Quran is if you kill a human (innocent)its as if you have killed the whole of Human Kind, and if you save on its as if you saved the whole. but these verses are not reflected in the net
Quran is a product of a gradual series of time, the verses were revealed prior to some real life situations so in order to understand the meaning behind the verses that the assaulter quotes he /she needs to know when the verse was revealed to what context.
hope i cleared my post enough

I want to share one thing is that all religion are the equal if we have Faith on God.The GOD is only one I can say,No matter that you are from other religion we are just human beings nothing else our GOD is same in all over the world.No need of any Religion.

well thats a good Question Islam gives a set of crieteria for one to go to heaven(and if you are going there then you are in the correct path man); these criteria s are
those who believe and do righteous good deeds, and recommend one another to the truth(and practice) , and recommend one another to patience(and practice)
the question of christianity was brought into i have a hard time with that, because i dont know what Bible i will concern myself to know what philosophy is the core
trinitarian concept or oneness pentacostal concept or unitarian concept and which cannon of the Old Testament to identify as true?

(1) Masoretic Text.
(2) Greek Septuagint.
(3) Qumran Scrolls (Scrolls of the Essenes).

Which New Testament codex (and or cannon) to hold true?

(1) Codex Alexandrius.
(2) Codex Syriac.
(3) Codex Vaticanus.
(4) Codex Sinaiticus.
(5) Mauratorian Cannon.
(6) Marcionite Codex/ Cannon.

---

again some christians say that they are born again, but the recent studies shows that Jesus (pbuh) never said that you have to be orn again because that term was never in the armaic language to begin with so that kind of conversation could never have happened, so now what can we say to the ones who claim to be the "born again" christians
again the gospel of Mark the last 12 verses ie after chap 16 vs 8 where the disciple go to meet Jesus (pbuh) after the resurrection is a through concoction, and in those verses Jesus gives the disciple the commandments of going and cleansing the rest . so those events never happened either so i have tough time imaging the evangelist healing ppl and doing all the stuffs they do because Jesus(pbuh) never gave that power to them in the first place

---

The reason for the western nations to be mostly more advanced in society and human rights is not that they were christian after all, but rather that they separated themselves from religion by a far distance. Science, intellect and reasonability are enough to replace religion.

i dont think so , in fact if you see the history of Islamic empire the core was religion but the scientific advancements were incredible, srsly most of the modern stuffs that we use are indebted to islamic empire. I am studying mech engineering and OMG so many incredible inventions you wont believe even i was stuttered.

And some claims to empirical methods was made but the fact is empirical method is a branch of rational thought not its source. and according to the rationalists, and we should distinguish here between the ‘rationalists’ and what is meant by ‘rational thought’, it is stated that humans were born with innate thoughts. One such exponent was Emannuel Kant the German philosopher.
JazakAllah
see you guys after i can manage time again

 

[Roflkopt3r]

Haha the pope is incredible:
Spain introduced a school subject about sex education and "study of life", which includes discussion about topics such as divorce, abortion and homosexuality.
So, what does the pope comment on this? That this was a doctrine "directed against belief and common sense".

Amazing... those vatican guys indeed still live in medieval times, confirming it once again.
He also clarified his statement about condoms, that they only should be use in extreme exeptional cases. A whole generation bit the dust from STDs, especially aids, and the church still prohibits the only reliable protection...

 

[blai]

Hmm, quite contradicting to on one side do that, and on the other hold a speech preaching that Big Bang was created by God. His Holiness actually denied all forms of Creationism and he want the Catholic people, and the ones who believe in Science to meet halfway and understand each other. Thus, big bang wasn't a coincidence, but a creation of God.

Then the question is, Creationism tells us the world was created in six days, does he defy the Old Testimony (he's a Catholic after all) and what the bible say about the six days of creation? Because if he don't, then he's pretty silly to say "God created big bang... AND CREATED EVERYTHING INCLUDING HUMANS IN SIX DAYS. Who said anything about billions of years wat?". If he does defy the Old Testimony and the Creation of the world, then he himself is telling the Catholic people that the Bible is wrong. And that's a bald thing to say for His Holiness...

 

[mattiaildivino]

A thing whose I'm unhappy is that religious would promote the peace,but there's the opposite. I don't want to take sides,but I tell you something: I don't believe in god,cause he has never showed himself to me .and cause scienze and technology are explaining what religious before "said" without any proof. I don't need religious,maybe you prefer this answer .

 

[Roflkopt3r]

.and cause scienze and technology are explaining what religious before "said" without any proof. I don't need religious,maybe you prefer this answer .

Hm, I think it's a good point... it happened so many times that churches and writings claimed something, which later was scientifically disproven. Then this point was just ignored by the church in the process.
But if a construction claiming to know universal truths is wrong in one point, how can it be reliable in claims about infinite verities such as how the world was created and that god exists?

Just like different things are interpreted all differently from generation to generation. Old testamony stating inhuman things which aren't compatible with our modern human rights etc.? Oh, it wasn't ment seriously, or "it doesn't count because of the new testamony" and stuff. How can that be? How can an omniscient god be too stupid, to put it bluntly, to express himself in a way clear enough to be understood by people, but rather phrased ideas so badly that million people died in religious wars, because these words could be interpreted that way?

But instead of just accounting it as "Ok, this isn't compatible with a good life to us" or "It's unreliable as it claims so many disproven things" and scrapping the idea of religion alltogether, the whole system is beeing encapsulated with self-serving declarations by believers. This can keep a belief alive, but it wrecks trustworthiness once and for all.

 

[Day]

My views are... slightly different than in the Bible~ It's kind of hard to explain. I'm Christian, believe that God exists; however, I kind of believe it's whatever you believe. I'm an active member at my church's praise team and bible study group. We're all free to our own beliefs.

I was never fond of religious discussions (particularly because my friendship with one of my friends was never the same again after we had one.. she is atheist and came off really strong against my beliefs which led me to believe her lesser respect for my beliefs ended up changing our relationship). But I also like and trust -to an extent- science.​

 

[nahkampfbiber]

My views are... slightly different than in the Bible~ It's kind of hard to explain. I'm Christian, believe that God exists; however, I kind of believe it's whatever you believe. I'm an active member at my church's praise team and bible study group. We're all free to our own beliefs.​

But, then what's the point of calling yourself a "Christian"?
If you only believe that a personal supernatural entity exists and actively influences the observable universe, then you are a Theist. Nothing else. "I'm a Christian" means that you additionally adhere to the dogmas of at least one of the various christian denominations.
And I'm not aware of any branch of Chistianity that preaches "God is whatever you want it to be".

This is something I simply don't get. Why is it so disastrous to disassociate yourself from ideas and concepts you can no longer hold? Why can't people be honest with themselves?
People are completely happy to say "I'm a Catholic, but I don't believe that hell/satan/whatever exists." Well sorry mate, but then you're NOT a Catholic. Don't throw these words around as if they just can mean anything. They exist for a reason. In order to identify your beliefs.
If you, for whatever reason, feel that you can no longer justify some of those beliefs then reassess your position on it.

 

[benelori]

People are completely happy to say "I'm a Catholic, but I don't believe that hell/satan/whatever exists." Well sorry mate, but then you're NOT a Catholic.

This is not so simple you know, and the definition of a Catholic is not really this one...I mean Satan, God, Heaven and Hell are pretty much symbolic...they represent ideas and they are not entities per se(God and Satan)...God created humans to resemble him not the other way around...

Being a Catholic means a certain way of life, and this way of life is the essence of Catholicism, not following the Bible blindly, and dogmas created by people... especially since most of the Bible is either mythology, or symbolic interpretations...

---

No, christianity is corrupt, I'll tell you why

Song of songs in the bible endorses incest acts which is totally immoral.

The bible gives people permission to kill non believers.

There is no way this corrupt book could be the product of where morals came from in the first place.

Some religions are totall nonesense and some of them don't give equal rights to humans.

There is one last religion which rules by the absolute morality and law, and its called islam.

The Bible is a product of mythology, pagan elements, and in the end is just a cultural heritage of the early Christians, nothing more...unlike Islam where the direct source of the morality and law is the Coran, in the case of Christians and this time Catholic, the Bible is just the a base for beliefs and religious life-style...the basic rules and laws were set by Jesus, and until now his laws are the main ones...the rest are just interpretations of the symbols, which can give birth to religious dogmas made by people...

The song of songs shouldn't be interpreted word by word, the Bible shouldn't be interpreted word by word, because as I said in the previous post, being a Christian means a certain way of life...and Christianity is corrupt because people are corrupt that's all...

---

My views are... slightly different than in the Bible~ It's kind of hard to explain. I'm Christian, believe that God exists; however, I kind of believe it's whatever you believe. I'm an active member at my church's praise team and bible study group. We're all free to our own beliefs.
​

That's true...we've been given free will, to act as we like, to believe what we want...the purpose of religions is to set a some boundaries to this free will, in order to guide humanity to a better life...this sounded soo cheesy, and maybe I should've used the term peaceful life...

I was never fond of religious discussions (particularly because my friendship with one of my friends was never the same again after we had one.. she is atheist and came off really strong against my beliefs which led me to believe her lesser respect for my beliefs ended up changing our relationship). But I also like and trust -to an extent- science.

It's good to trust science...not trusting science and foolishly believing in what the Bible says, especially the Genesis is probably the worst thing ever...

 

[k-dom]

2 Jehovah's Witnesses visit me yesterday, that was a funny discussion. Especially when I asked them if they believed in extra-terristrial lives :-))

But, then what's the point of calling yourself a "Christian"?
If you only believe that a personal supernatural entity exists and actively influences the observable universe, then you are a Theist. Nothing else. "I'm a Christian" means that you additionally adhere to the dogmas of at least one of the various christian denominations.
And I'm not aware of any branch of Chistianity that preaches "God is whatever you want it to be".

This is something I simply don't get. Why is it so disastrous to disassociate yourself from ideas and concepts you can no longer hold? Why can't people be honest with themselves?
People are completely happy to say "I'm a Catholic, but I don't believe that hell/satan/whatever exists." Well sorry mate, but then you're NOT a Catholic. Don't throw these words around as if they just can mean anything. They exist for a reason. In order to identify your beliefs.
If you, for whatever reason, feel that you can no longer justify some of those beliefs then reassess your position on it.

You can disagree with the main believe but still wants to associate yourself with a cult. I would perfectly understand that you disagree with the pope view wrt AIDS but still want to share the life a the communities. That allows to make your church alive and not a fossilized society. But I kinda agree with you, if you start diverging to much from the main concept it's better to see somewhere else. Also I don't think that believing in hell and satan are that much necessary for being Catholic

 

[benelori]

2 Jehovah's Witnesses visit me yesterday, that was a funny discussion. Especially when I asked them if they believed in extra-terristrial lives :-))

LOL...tell us more...U must've had a great time

 

[shaheer]

JW s are my fav, , its always a fun talking with em

 

[M3J]

Problem with churches and religions are that they won't accept different ideas in some cases and even will follow stuff that makes no sense, like Pope banning condoms. I read how a Mormon basketball (?) player got kicked off the team and possibly suspended (I forgot) for having premarital sex. Uptight, yo. D: