Why don't you believe in God?

[Vioh]

 

We've only had the technology to make such a discovery quite recently lol. The fact that a Catholic man has made the discovery does not contradict anything and in fact would only add to out understanding of the verse due to the knowledge we have now! Lmao Tell me how someone from the 7th century could have known that God was alluding to the Big Bang?

 

 

I’m not quite sure what your main point is, but look, it’s neither the Christians nor the Muslims that discovered that the Big Bang actually happened. Discovery basically means to find the evidence for something. Since it wasn’t the religions that found evidence for Big Bang, you can’t say that religions discovered Big Bang. It was more like a guessing game. The Bible or the Quran just tried to guess what the answers were, and some of them happened to be right, while some of them happened to be completely wrong.

 

"And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it."(The Qur'an, 51:47)

 

Sorry, but in no way does science claim that there is such a thing as heaven, nor does it claim that the universe is expanding at a steady rate. In fact, it has been carefully observed that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate…. (please it)

 

Regarding what you’re saying about embryology in the Quran, I must admit that I had no knowledge whatsoever so I shouldn’t say anything about this matter. However, I stumbled on this video on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRBrl02tnnY#t=998) and it seems that every claim from the so-called miracle seekers can actually be debunked by science & rationality. Perhaps you wouldn’t even want/try to watch this video because of your conservative, but I’ll just put here anyway for people who would like to find out about the truth. In general, Quran’s explanation of the formations of the embryo is entirely vague & lacks substantial details, thus it’s very similar to astrology in which the predictions are made so vague & general enough such that it can be applied to everybody.

 

Now I would not continue trying to debunk your other points about how Quran supporting science if you haven’t answered my following question first. The thing is the Quran basically claims that the god himself created humans from clay, semen, etc (source: my general knowledge about the Quran). On the other hand, it’s clearly established in science (specifically in biology) that humans are the result of thousands & millions of years of evolution. So how can you possibly say that Islam supports science when the Quran's story of creation (which lies at the heart of Islam) contradicts against evolutionary biology (which lies at the heart of science)? Before you’re gonna quote another long verse from the Quran, please try to answer this first. (also pay attention to the things that I wrote in bold, don’t get side tracked and end up explaining something else)

 

Fun fact about science: Do you know where the elements in our body come from? It’s from the core of a massive star which we only get if a star is *kind* enough to explode for us to get those elements. So you should forget everything about gods, and thank the stars for *sacrificing* themselves for us to exist. (A scientific joke by Lawrence Krauss in one of his talks)

 

In general, I think all of these attempts at finding the *scientific miracles* from the Quran are basically a desperate act by the religious people to defend their religion against science which is probably the most remarkable achievement of humanity.

[Vioh]

I believe religion, no matter from what angle you look at it, is subjective and this a private thing. [...] Now, does that mean that religion and science contradict each other? Not really. As I said previously, religion is personal and subjective, and as a result, it depends on your own interpretations of your religion.

 

I do know that my life philosophies are very compatible with the Buddhist thought, though I do not call myself a Buddhist because I have yet to make my mind up about certain aspects of Buddhism (such as reincarnation), nor have I done a thorough evaluation of most of the other religions and whether or not they provide with a better or worse depiction of the world than Buddhism. However, as for now, I associate myself the most with Buddhism, for the better or worse. I guess I currently is what is defined as an agnostic, though.

 

I think what you have posted here is a quite interesting point to bring up. For me, I have no problem whatsoever with people wanting to have their own faith for the purpose of *consoling*, or the purpose of finding their own *philosophy of life*. So for that reason, I totally support your point of view on trying to find your own interpretation/philosophy. However, just don’t ever try to distort the scientific facts to conform to your beliefs. In other words, I think there are more to religions than just moral philosophy. Religions also have many other aspects such as the stories of creation, religious mythologies, religious predictions, etc, etc. More importantly, it is these other aspects of religions that go directly against science. So even though I agree very much with the approach that you’ve just described, I still hold a strong view that religions & science clearly contradict each other, simply because I think there’re much more to religions than just moral philosophy of life.

 

In fact, it is exactly the same thing as in Buddhism. I was actually raised as a Buddhist myself as I was born in Vietnam. During 12 years of my life, I was heavily exposed to this religion, which was also the reason why I became so interested in Buddhism. This led to one of my biggest research projects about Buddhism back when I was still in secondary school. Back then, I heard many people saying that Buddhism is the most *peaceful* religion in the world, well…. because it is more like a ‘philosophy’ rather than a religion as most people think.  After the project, I figured out that this is not quite true. I mean it’s true that Buddhism doesn’t even bother itself whether god exists or not. However, Buddhism still does make lots of other mythical claims, such as reincarnation (as you’ve pointed out), or life after death. These claims go directly against science because science tells us that there’s basically nothing that can carry information existed in the brain after we die. In other words, even though quite a big part of Buddhism deals with the *philosophy of life* (such as karma & stuff, which are perfectly ok to me), there are still also many other aspects of Buddhism that go directly against science.

 

So in general, I agree with you that we should only choose some certain philosophical aspects of religions (which are mostly about morality) to determine our own way to live our lives. But again, that’s not the way religions work in real life, because religions are not philosophy and/or ethics

 

[alefal]

SallyShariff: 

 

First of all, I apologise for my poorly argumented, rambling, late-night procrastination  That's what happens when I procrastinate, I guess, I involve myself in discussions that I shouldn't involve myself in! I did write this in two or three phases (as a result of procrastination again), so I'm sorry if there are any lapses in my arguments. I do believe I've done a slightly better job this time around though!

 

Anyway, I feel that a reply is asked for here. First of all, SallyShariff, yes, that is a very simple reading of the Qur'an, but do you think all religious people have a deep understanding of the literal texts? I think not. First of all, those who convert to or are Muslim, but having no understanding of Arabic (ancient or not) will have to rely on translations and interpretations of those. There is a reason why those translations exist, namely for others without an Arabic background to be able to read and understand the Qur'an. If no translation would be at least somewhat accurate - why translate at all? If that was the case, then it'd been much better to just stick to the original language in order to avoid such misinterpretations. 

Furthermore, those translations I refer to are written by Muslims who (hopefully) know what they're talking about - they're not written by an atheist or a Christian, but people who are Muslim and have studied the Qur'an for their whole lives. Shouldn't they be aware of the complexity of the language, and therefore translate it similarly? Shouldn't they know exactly what is referred to in every single phrase, and agree upon each others' conclusions? No. Although that'd be great, there's a reason why that won't happen. The reason is called 'interpretation'. First of all, no-one truly speaks Ancient Arabic any more (although people study it, just like people study Latin or Old Norse), which means that the context in which words are used have changed. That means that people will have to interpret words' meanings, and as such, different understandings of a text will occur. Think about it - 'Shakespearean English' (late phase of Early Modern English) and Modern English are far from being the same, and that's a period of only 300 years. People's understanding of words change over time. A better example would perhaps be the word 'gay'. For less than half a century ago, the word meant 'happy'. Now, for some reason, it's used as a term (often derogatory) referring to homosexual men. Similar changes can be found in all languages, because all languages are constantly developing. Words change, associations change, meanings change. I mean, people have completely misunderstood Shakespeare's plays a number of times due to the fact that the words have changed meanings, scholars still struggle to understand some manuscripts in Old Norse even as they have studied the language for most of their lives (despite for the fact that Icelandic and Faroese are very similar, and that the Scandinavian languages are solely based on Old Norse). This is in no way unique to these two languages. 

Let's explore another part of 'interpretation'. You know you're actually interpreting this now, right? Thinking that I'm overly defensive, a tad aggressive, that I am completely wrong or what I'm saying is actually not all that bad. You are interpreting my words and create an understanding of what I am saying, based on what you know of the language itself, what you understand as the context, your emotions, your past and current experiences, et cetera. Since none of the others who are reading this share your experiences, your emotions and so on, no one will interpret (and understand) this perfectly the same way as you do. This is applicable to all types of communication, including written and spoken communication. As such, this is also applicable to religious texts, of course including the Qur'an. You choose to read the Qur'an line 51:37 as evidence that Qur'an is 'scientific' and concurs with the scientific findings of an expanding outer space, others choose to interpret it differently (as previously mentioned, some would rather argue it asserts that Allah is powerful). 

So, yes, of course, a reading of the Ancient Arabic manuscript will lead to a much more accurate interpretation in many ways, but it still remains as an interpretation. There is a reason why there are multiple branches of Islam, such as the Shi'ite, Sunni and Sufi branches (which also contain a plethora of sub-branches).

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

...

 

 If I'm correct, you're saying, 'Hey the Quran mentions the Big Bang theory, so how come Muslims didn't come up with it first?" 

 

 

Speaking about simple interpretations.. 

Not exactly what I meant to say. I might have phrased myself poorly, but it's not exactly what I was trying to say. 

Back in the heydays of Ancient Greece, Aristotle established the idea that space is finite. Since then, until relatively recent times, there have been numerous theological arguments that space is in fact infinite, including a number of Muslims. My question, then, is rather why did no one pick up on that particular phrase, if one of its interpretations says so clearly that Allah is 'continuously expanding it'?

One doesn't need much intelligence to draw a line between the ideas of finite vs infinite space and the idea of expanding space. One doesn't even need to mention a big bang or any fancy at all, nor does one need any scientific proof to back that statement up - people are more than capable of making things up. Just look at Christmas - it has NOTHING to do with Jesus or Christianity at all, it was originally a Germanic mid-winter festival. Furthermore, Aristotle didn't really exactly use any scientific measures to conclude that space was finite, he essentially just used his own imagination. People have been able to draw lines between aspects that are less relatable before. 

 

 

 

Regarding your comments on embryonic development - that was news to me. I'm a bit unsure about your quote, though. With all other scientific quotes I've searched on, I've managed to find something that makes it able to relate it to science (whether that is the actual source itself or scientific discussions about that source). However, the only pages that pop up when I search for that particular quote are Muslim pages. There are NO other pages popping up in my searches. The same is the case when I search at Google Books, and there are no truly relevant results when searching on Google Scholar. I'm sorry to say, but that makes me question the credibility of that quote itself. 

Other than that, the bigger picture I was trying to get at, which Vioh more eloquently put forward, was the unscientific parts of the religion. I'd like to see a proper, logical and comprehensive response to the problems she raises, because I've honestly never seen one. It all seems to end up in a comment along the lines of 'I believe in [mention a god or religion], and that's what we consider the truth. Everything else that's countering our religion must definitely be wrong.' 

Actually, perhaps we should change this up completely. There are always arguments for and against a thing, no matter how bad or fallacious the arguments are. As such, why don't you give us some arguments as for why Islam is NOT a scientific religion? It's a good exercise to ask yourself the completely opposite question of the one you're asking. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok now, a very simplistic reading of the text haha. "What??? We're not made of clay!"

 

 When the human body is examined today, it may be discovered that many elements present on the earth are also to be found in the body. Living tissues contain 95% carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur, with a total of 26 different elements. 

 

 

 

I agree, a very simplistic reading indeed. However, your counterargument is not convincing. Yes, our bodies contain a lot of various elements, but that is in no way a proof that we are made by clay. In fact, your next claim, that 'the information revealed in the Qur'an 1,400 years ago confirms what modern science tells us-the fact that the same elements are employed in human creation as those found in the soil' contradicts in a way the phrase in the Qur'an. One is clearly saying that we are made of clay, whilst you're merely saying the same elements exist in the soil and in humans. Those two statements are not the same, and you should know that. If one believes fully in the Qur'an, then saying what you said is not sufficient, the only true statement is that humans are essentially clay. We are clearly not. Even if the same materials exist in the clay and in humans, that does in no way mean we cannot be made by something else - such as stardust or the sun. Or, wait, crazy idea - evolution. Science has proven that evolution is a thing, which, as Vioh stated, does not fit within the idea of godly interference. 

 

 

Okay, let me get this straight: the Qur'an is Allah's words. You believe 100% in Allah, and as such, you also believe 100% in the Qur'an. Do you then believe that non-believers shall be executed, as the Qur'an mentions a number of places (which is also the case in the other Abrahamic religions)? I know for a fact that the Qur'an contains a number of verses referring to the use of violence to dispel the non-believers. 

My point here is not that your faith is invalid or anything of the like, but rather that the unconditional belief in what's written might be one one level dangerous (do I have to mention ISIS and other terrorist organisations?), and on another level unnecessary. It is not necessary to believe that all non-believers have to be killed in order to call oneself a true Muslim. As I've grown up in the West, I have a lot of Christian friends. Most of these do believe in Darwin's theory of evolution rather than the Bible's explanation that God created the world in six days. No one, beyond perhaps the most fundamental Christians, would argue that they are any less Christian because of that. I also have some Muslim friends, and none of them agree with the verses referring to killing of non-believers at all, and some do believe in evolution instead of the 'Allah created everything' hypothesis. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...

 

It seems that you are kind of confused as to what you believe in, so I wish you luck on your spiritual journey and that you find something you are comfortable with

 

 

Where in the world did you get this from? How can you make that assumption from only one post? I'm sorry, but I don't think you're in any position to claim anything about me based on that single post. Thanks for being concerned about my spiritual 'well-being', but I can assure you that you're mistaken. 

[alefal]

Vioh

 

I guess you're commenting on a very important point there. As I mentioned earlier, that was mostly my late-night rambling that I didn't think through properly. However, as I also mentioned in my reply to SallyShariff, I know of Christians who don't believe in god's six-day creation of the world, for instance. I think for many, they pick and choose what exactly they'd like to believe in and discard everything else. In sum, they're choosing the spiritual things that they like (whether they are in some way consoling in the broad sense of the word, guiding their morals, helping create a philosophy of life or something like that). As such, modern understandings of religions is not the rigid belief in all aspects of religion, but rather taking the morals and philosophies and use them in a way that works in the real life. At least, that has been my experience. As such, to me, religion has never truly been much more than morals and philosophies of life. The more religiously fundamental one is, the more one diverts from this line of thinking, of course, but religiously fundamentals are in a vast minority when you look at the numbers. 

 

And, personally, I don't think there should be any doubt that Buddhism is a non-theistic religion, with a much greater sense of clear life philosophies than what is immediately obvious in most other religions. In terms of life philosophies alone, I think I could count as Buddhist, but when it comes to the more spiritual parts, I'm not so sure. However, I think there's a lot of confusion on this point, as some people who call themselves Buddhists shares only the philosophies with the religion, and as such is trying to legitimise their claims with the statements that 'Buddhism is more about life philosophies'. Maybe I'm wrong, I haven't studied that particular debate in detail, but I do see that as a credible explanation. 

 

 

(Sorry for the double-post, but it wouldn't let me post it as one post unfortunately )

[Vioh]

First, I have to say that you’ve written a really good and comprehensive post in reply to SallyShariff. You made the arguments much stronger than mine However, regarding your reply to my post, there are some points that I would disagree.

 

However, as I also mentioned in my reply to SallyShariff, I know of Christians who don't believe in god's six-day creation of the world, for instance.

 

I know that you’ve been living in Norway for a long time; and perhaps this is the reason why you have a little bit more of an optimistic view towards religions, compared to what is actually happening in the rest of the world. I also have been living in Scandinavia for quite a while, and I know that there are lots of people who claim themselves to be Christians (& they go to church every month) but don’t actually believe in any gods or Christian mysticism. I don’t know anything about your Christian friends, but I’ll still try to speculate these following 3 reasons why your friends happen to not believe in the bible’s stories of creation:

• Maybe for your friends, Christianity is more like a cultural/traditional thing rather than the actual belief. For example, a person goes to church because he has been doing so since he was born. Some people thank the God before a meal, which maybe because of the tradition within their families. Some people allow their children to be baptized or to have wedding in church, simply because it's traditional to do so.
• It may be the case that your friends are influenced by people who try to conform Christianity such that it’s more compatible with science. The purpose of this is to keep the number of followers. In fact I know a lot of Christian theologians who do this. A famous example of such a theologian would be William Lane Craig as he said that his interpretation of Christianity supports the Big Bang & evolution theory. I would say that this is a good thing from my point of view, but it’s a bad thing to religion itself, because it just shows that Christianity is just inconsistent with its original belief from the bible
• It also may be the case that your friends simply don’t care or don’t want to get into any debates

Now if you look at many other parts of the world, then largely speaking, religions just don’t behave like what you described. Take America for example. Over there, Christianity is so much more aggressive, authoritarian, and anti-science compared to what happens in Scandinavia. These next following points are just a few horrible things that Christians have done over there in America:

• Denial of scientific truth: A few years ago, Christians in US demanded that Christianity should be taught in science classroom because they thought that Christian faith-based stories are as important as any knowledge in science. I actually have heard that a classmate of mine, who comes from US, refused to study evolution as her IB biology option because evolution goes directly against her belief
• Christians voted against stem-cell research. And this, according to Christopher Hitchens, is probably the most dangerous & immoral act made by the Christians.
• Christians discriminate against homosexuals

In fact, Christopher Hitchens summed up all of these horrible doings in 3 words: “Religion poisons everything”. You can watch his speech at google here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD0B-X9LJjs . So it seems that religious teachings can even be less moral compared to our current establishment of ethical codes.

 

Now, i'd like to point out that all establishment of morality/ethics in Christianity is based entirely upon the mysticism of Christianity, which is incompatible with science. Very roughly speaking, Christians do good things because by doing so, they would get to heaven; while they avoid doing bad things because they don’t want to be punished by God (i.e. to go to hell). So all in all, in order to understand the ethics discussed in the bible, one must believe – one way or another – in the Christian mysticism (namely heaven & hell). In fact, it’s the idea of God itself that is the central backbone to Christian morality. And we know that the concept of God is irrational, hence it’s not compatible with science. I can extend this argument to all other theist religions out there in the world.

 

Another point to bring up is that standing from your point of view (in which you claims that religion is nothing more than philosophies of life), then it seems that there’s no difference in the nature of religion vs socialism, because both of them mainly concern themselves with the philosophy of life. However, we never speak of them as the same thing, even in the world nowadays. Why? Because religion has mysticism in it, while socialism doesn’t!

 

So all in all, I must disagree with your following point:

 

As such, modern understandings of religions is not the rigid belief in all aspects of religion, but rather taking the morals and philosophies and use them in a way that works in the real life. At least, that has been my experience. As such, to me, religion has never truly been much more than morals and philosophies of life. The more religiously fundamental one is, the more one diverts from this line of thinking, of course, but religiously fundamentals are in a vast minority when you look at the numbers.

 

… simply because morality in religions often needs religious mysticism to back itself up.  So by saying that modern religions are nothing more than just morality/philosophies of life, I think it would be misleading, incorrect, and doesn’t reflect the true nature of religion itself in the way that most people understand the word *religion* in the everyday sense

Edited January 2, 2015 by Vioh

[Vioh]

And, personally, I don't think there should be any doubt that Buddhism is a non-theistic religion, with a much greater sense of clear life philosophies than what is immediately obvious in most other religions.

 

Yes I agree with you that Buddhism is a non-theistic religion because as I said earlier, Buddhism doesn’t care whether there is a God or not. Also, it’s very obvious that Buddhism presents itself to be much more philosophical compared to other religions. However, the truth is that whether it is non-theistic or not, Buddhism is still a religion!!!.... simply because Buddha’s teaching involves some sort of mysticism. Similar to any other religions, mysticism is necessary to explain Buddhist philosophy/ethics. Let’s take *karma* for example. This word basically illustrates the law of causes-and-effects, which is a very nice philosophy in my opinion. However, when it’s put under the religious (Buddhist) context, this nice idea becomes a total nonsense and irrational faith-based mysticism. Roughly speaking, Buddhist teaching is about if you do good things, you’ll get good karma, and you’ll be reborn in a better life; if you do bad things, you’ll get bad karma, and you’ll suffer more in your next life. So within Buddhism, the idea of karma goes hand in hand with the idea of reincarnation and the cycle of life (samsara). And therefore, by believing in Buddhist karma, it’s quite problematic if you, at the same time, dismiss the idea of reincarnation.

 

The second point I would like to bring up is that all religions (including Buddhism) have a central spiritual goal. In Christianity, this goal is to go to heaven and to understand God. In Buddhism, this goal is to end the cycle of life and reach enlightenment (nirvana if you will). But how to reach enlightenment? Well you basically have to have a good moral soul, and to be able to be ‘enlightened’ through meditation. This is mysticism, because by believing in enlightenment, you basically have to believe in a realm of reality that is outside the cycle of life. And since this is the central part of Buddhism, I find it hard to accept Buddhism to be just about philosophy.

 

I’d also like to bring up the third point of my analysis. Even though Buddhism doesn’t involve any gods or deities, Buddhism still believes in some form of a higher mode of being (e.g. Buddha is like a ‘higher being’), which is reached after enlightenment. According to Buddhism, at this higher mode of being, one can ‘feel’ the universe in the sense that all knowledge of the universe can be understood (source: this actually comes from my own discussion with my Buddhist room-mate who has spent years to research about his religion). Well this is clearly when philosophy and mysticism collide, and that is exactly the reason why I would call Buddhism as a religion! Now, I would end my analysis by quoting this paragraph from this article http://www.purifymind.com/BuddhismMysticism.htm

 

“At the heart of all religious systems is an anti-life outlook. This is manifested in various ways. For Buddhists, the focus is on suffering. The Buddhist seeks to avoid suffering by focusing on mystical methods of alleviation. Thus Buddhism starts off with a problem created by itself and then offers a solution to the alleged problem. This is true of other religions as well, as when Christianity assumes everyone to be a ‘sinner’ and then offers a way to have those sins forgiven. The methodology is the same: Both religions create a psychological dependence that tends to keep the believer mired down in the system.”

 

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that religion is so much more than just philosophy of life. In fact, without the mysticism part, religious morals and philosophies cannot be justified. So I think you are defending something that you really do not stand for. You are defending religions, but at the same time, you would dismiss the mysticism part of it, which is probably the most central backbone for the whole religion itself!!!

 

Finally, I’d like to apologize for my 2 super-long posts it seems that I suck at making my writing short and concise.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Vioh

[Emilia1320]

[size=3

I know that you’ve been living in Norway for a long time; and perhaps this is the reason why you have a little bit more of an optimistic view towards religions, compared to what is actually happening in the rest of the world. I also have been living in Scandinavia for quite a while, and I know that there are lots of people who claim themselves to be Christians (& they go to church every month) but don’t actually believe in any gods or Christian mysticism. I don’t know anything about your Christian friends, but I’ll still try to speculate these following 3 reasons why your friends happen to not believe in the bible’s stories of creation:

• Maybe for your friends, Christianity is more like a cultural/traditional thing rather than the actual belief. For example, a person goes to church because he has been doing so since he was born. Some people thank the God before a meal, which maybe because of the tradition within their families. Some people allow their children to be baptized or to have wedding in church, simply because it's traditional to do so.
• It may be the case that your friends are influenced by people who try to conform Christianity such that it’s more compatible with science. The purpose of this is to keep the number of followers. In fact I know a lot of Christian theologians who do this. A famous example of such a theologian would be William Lane Craig as he said that his interpretation of Christianity supports the Big Bang & evolution theory. I would say that this is a good thing from my point of view, but it’s a bad thing to religion itself, because it just shows that Christianity is just inconsistent with its original belief from the bible
• It also may be the case that your friends simply don’t care or don’t want to get into any debates

Now if you look at many other parts of the world, then largely speaking, religions just don’t behave like what you described. Take America for example. Over there, Christianity is so much more aggressive, authoritarian, and anti-science compared to what happens in Scandinavia. These next following points are just a few horrible things that Christians have done over there in America:

• Denial of scientific truth: A few years ago, Christians in US demanded that Christianity should be taught in science classroom because they thought that Christian faith-based stories are as important as any knowledge in science. I actually have heard that a classmate of mine, who comes from US, denied to study evolution as her IB biology option because evolution goes directly against her belief
• Christians voted against stem-cell research. And this, according to Christopher Hitchens, is the most probably the most dangerous & immoral act made by the Christians.
• Christians discriminate against homosexuals

In fact, Christopher Hitchens summed up all of these horrible doings in 3 words: “Religions poison everything”. You can watch his speech at google here

. So it seems that religious teachings can even be less moral compared to our current establishment of ethical codes.

 

Now, i'd like to point out that all establishment of morality/ethics in Christianity is based entirely upon the mysticism of Christianity, which is incompatible with science. Very roughly speaking, Christians do good things because by doing so, they would get to heaven; while they avoid doing bad things because they don’t want to be punished by God (i.e. to go to hell). So all in all, in order to understand the ethics discussed in the bible, one must believe – one way or another – in the Christian mysticism (namely heaven & hell). In fact, it’s the idea of God itself that is the central backbone to Christian morality. And we know that the concept of God is irrational, hence it’s not compatible with science. I can extend this argument to all other theist religions out there in the world.

 

Another point to bring up is that standing from your point of view (in which you claims that religion is nothing more than philosophies of life), then it seems that there’s no difference in the nature of religion vs socialism, because both of them mainly concern themselves with the philosophy of life. However, we never speak of them as the same thing, even in the world nowadays. Why? Because religion has mysticism in it, while socialism doesn’t!

 

So all in all, I must disagree with your following point:

 

As such, modern understandings of religions is not the rigid belief in all aspects of religion, but rather taking the morals and philosophies and use them in a way that works in the real life. At least, that has been my experience. As such, to me, religion has never truly been much more than morals and philosophies of life. The more religiously fundamental one is, the more one diverts from this line of thinking, of course, but religiously fundamentals are in a vast minority when you look at the numbers.

 

… simply because morality in religions often needs religious mysticism to back itself up.  So by saying that modern religions are nothing more than just morality/philosophies of life, I think it would be misleading, incorrect, and doesn’t reflect the true nature of religion itself in the way that most people understand the word *religion* in the everyday sense

I would like to add a view of another Scnadinavian here.

It's true that many Scandinavians just go to cruch because it's part of the culture and they don't believe in God that strictly.

However, dangerous influence of religions at least in finland is yet too big. There are dangerously fundamental and subjective people on key vacancies, like as religion teachers and even on government. Christian political order managed to delay the objective marriage law whole 4 years.

And religion is still mandatory subject for everyone who belong to church. Like I do, since I can't leave on my own and my parents won't let me.

And as Vioh mentioned they are against stem cell research, which is not only conservative but it's deadly. They don't see the potential of those new technologies. There is no doubt they will develop fast and once they save concretically lives everyone will see their usefulness.

And that's just an example. They are against many other branches of science too, useful ones.

And I too know a friend who refuses evolution because of her faith. She is otherwise very clever and good at biology but... It's just sad that the most accurate knowledge is denied based on fairy tales.

[Aras]

You're not educated enough if you think religion is a barrier to access to education.

[Emilia1320]

You're not educated enough if you think religion is a barrier to access to education.

The education is, or should be searching the knowledge. Developing knowledge. Denying the most accurate knowledge doesn't go well with that. Of course that's not always the case but for those who directly believe their religion's holy writings (I'm now speaking about at least major religions, and most of minor ones) deny the most accurate knowledge about many fields of study.

[Aras]

 

You're not educated enough if you think religion is a barrier to access to education.

The education is, or should be searching the knowledge. Developing knowledge. Denying the most accurate knowledge doesn't go well with that. Of course that's not always the case but for those who directly believe their religion's holy writings (I'm now speaking about at least major religions, and most of minor ones) deny the most accurate knowledge about many fields of study.

 

As a Muslim, it's a duty in Islam to pursuit for knowledge.

BTW, I think you've mixed science with education.  *I don't want to assume, but I think you're an atheist. Because that's what they do 99% of the time.* 

[Emilia1320]

You're not educated enough if you think religion is a barrier to access to education.

The education is, or should be searching the knowledge. Developing knowledge. Denying the most accurate knowledge doesn't go well with that. Of course that's not always the case but for those who directly believe their religion's holy writings (I'm now speaking about at least major religions, and most of minor ones) deny the most accurate knowledge about many fields of study.

As a Muslim, it's a duty in Islam to pursuit for knowledge.

BTW, I think you've mixed science with education. *I don't want to assume, but I think you're an atheist. Because that's what they do 99% of the time.*

I don't quite catch what you mean. What kind of knowledge you are spreading then?

Are you denying that the education should be bound on the most accurate knowledge?

One point for you thou, I'm an atheist.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Emilia1320

[alefal]

...

 

Actually, in hindsight, I think even I would disagree with myself!  That's what happens when you write things immediately after the New Year's celebrations! I would like to point out, though, that I did say that 'The more religiously fundamental one is, the more one diverts from this line of thinking', but I guess that doesn't change much. 

 

There are a few points I would like to highlight, though. First of all, you're indeed correct - in fact I have lived in Norway all my life until I started at university.

 

1. I don't consider those who don't believe in god Christian. That's the single most important part of the Christian belief, and I don't think it's fair to say that this particular aspect counters science - yet. Although the merits of god can be dissected and disproved, the existence of a god itself has not. Whether or not it is irrational is in itself not a substantial proof against the existence of god, though a good indicator that its existence is highly improbable. I understand that science values rationality, but there are things considered irrational in the past that are considered rational today (or vice versa), simply because not all facts were on the table. As such, one cannot refute its existence based on perceived lack of rationality alone. 

 

2. Some of my friends treat it more as a culture, but some of them definitely treat Christianity as a proper religion. As for their influences, I honestly don't know, and the answer to your third 'reason' would depend heavily on which friend we're talking about. Some love debates, whilst at least a few of them shy away from too serious discussions. 

 

3. I don't really see the problem with the inconsistency presented by Craig and the introduction of evolution in Christianity - or any other religion for that matter. They're already full of inconsistencies already, one more is not going to do much. In fact, that inconsistency actually brings the religion (or, at least, those who accept evolution) closer to the real world in terms of science, and I think that's welcoming. The Christian church was furiously against describing the world as round before as well. 

 

4. Belief in mysticism can be consistent with philosophy on many levels. There is something called spiritual philosophy which deals exactly with mysticism. I also know for a fact that a lot of people consider the existence of god(s) a spiritual AND a philosophical question, and as such philosophical thoughts play a major role in the religious foundation. Although departing from the more narrow 'philosophy of life' aspect we were discussing, philosophy still plays a role here. 

 

5. I really enjoyed Hitchen's talk, but I get the sense that he's more referring to organised religion. Maybe that's just me, but I'm not a fan of organised religion. Most commonly, it is the organised religion that goes against scientific breakthroughs. Also, I am a bit unsure if religions is less 'moral' than what already exists. I need some more time to think about that.

 

 

Another point to bring up is that standing from your point of view (in which you claims that religion is nothing more than philosophies of life), then it seems that there’s no difference in the nature of religion vs socialism, because both of them mainly concern themselves with the philosophy of life. However, we never speak of them as the same thing, even in the world nowadays. Why? Because religion has mysticism in it, while socialism doesn’t!

 

 

Now, here you got me completely wrong. Religion is a set of chiefly spiritual beliefs, socialism is a political ideology. Just like the fact that Islam and Islamism is far from being the same; Islam is a set of spiritual beliefs, Islamism is a political ideology. 

Also, although I understand your point, I would argue that socialism in its core is more about the functions of state and politics rather than a life philosophy. It assumes that humans are all equal and that everything should be communal, and builds a political and economic theory that is assumed to result in such a society. Some do religiously believe in socialism, but socialism is not comparable in and by itself to religions. Religion is built not on politics nor economics, but on spirituality. 

 

 

 

 

You're not educated enough if you think religion is a barrier to access to education.

 

Religion can very well be a barrier to the access to education. Look at how many girls who are deprived of education around the world due to certain religious beliefs, for instance. Or, how many people who are not educated about the evolution theory, because it counter their beliefs.

 

 

As a Muslim, it's a duty in Islam to pursuit for knowledge.

 

 

What kind of knowledge? Knowledge is a vast word with many different connotations. If you're open to all kinds of knowledge, you will know that, objectively and logically speaking, all religions are fallacious in one way or another and that it is improbable that a god exists. 

[Aras]

 

...

 

Actually, in hindsight, I think even I would disagree with myself!  That's what happens when you write things immediately after the New Year's celebrations! I would like to point out, though, that I did say that 'The more religiously fundamental one is, the more one diverts from this line of thinking', but I guess that doesn't change much. 

 

There are a few points I would like to highlight, though. First of all, you're indeed correct - in fact I have lived in Norway all my life until I started at university.

 

1. I don't consider those who don't believe in god Christian. That's the single most important part of the Christian belief, and I don't think it's fair to say that this particular aspect counters science - yet. Although the merits of god can be dissected and disproved, the existence of a god itself has not. Whether or not it is irrational is in itself not a substantial proof against the existence of god, though a good indicator that its existence is highly improbable. I understand that science values rationality, but there are things considered irrational in the past that are considered rational today (or vice versa), simply because not all facts were on the table. As such, one cannot refute its existence based on perceived lack of rationality alone. 

 

2. Some of my friends treat it more as a culture, but some of them definitely treat Christianity as a proper religion. As for their influences, I honestly don't know, and the answer to your third 'reason' would depend heavily on which friend we're talking about. Some love debates, whilst at least a few of them shy away from too serious discussions. 

 

3. I don't really see the problem with the inconsistency presented by Craig and the introduction of evolution in Christianity - or any other religion for that matter. They're already full of inconsistencies already, one more is not going to do much. In fact, that inconsistency actually brings the religion (or, at least, those who accept evolution) closer to the real world in terms of science, and I think that's welcoming. The Christian church was furiously against describing the world as round before as well. 

 

4. Belief in mysticism can be consistent with philosophy on many levels. There is something called spiritual philosophy which deals exactly with mysticism. I also know for a fact that a lot of people consider the existence of god(s) a spiritual AND a philosophical question, and as such philosophical thoughts play a major role in the religious foundation. Although departing from the more narrow 'philosophy of life' aspect we were discussing, philosophy still plays a role here. 

 

5. I really enjoyed Hitchen's talk, but I get the sense that he's more referring to organised religion. Maybe that's just me, but I'm not a fan of organised religion. Most commonly, it is the organised religion that goes against scientific breakthroughs. Also, I am a bit unsure if religions is less 'moral' than what already exists. I need some more time to think about that.

 

 

Another point to bring up is that standing from your point of view (in which you claims that religion is nothing more than philosophies of life), then it seems that there’s no difference in the nature of religion vs socialism, because both of them mainly concern themselves with the philosophy of life. However, we never speak of them as the same thing, even in the world nowadays. Why? Because religion has mysticism in it, while socialism doesn’t!

 

 

Now, here you got me completely wrong. Religion is a set of chiefly spiritual beliefs, socialism is a political ideology. Just like the fact that Islam and Islamism is far from being the same; Islam is a set of spiritual beliefs, Islamism is a political ideology. 

Also, although I understand your point, I would argue that socialism in its core is more about the functions of state and politics rather than a life philosophy. It assumes that humans are all equal and that everything should be communal, and builds a political and economic theory that is assumed to result in such a society. Some do religiously believe in socialism, but socialism is not comparable in and by itself to religions. Religion is built not on politics nor economics, but on spirituality. 

 

 

 

 

You're not educated enough if you think religion is a barrier to access to education.

 

Religion can very well be a barrier to the access to education. Look at how many girls who are deprived of education around the world due to certain religious beliefs, for instance. Or, how many people who are not educated about the evolution theory, because it counter their beliefs.

 

 

As a Muslim, it's a duty in Islam to pursuit for knowledge.

 

 

What kind of knowledge? Knowledge is a vast word with many different connotations. If you're open to all kinds of knowledge, you will know that, objectively and logically speaking, all religions are fallacious in one way or another and that it is improbable that a god exists. 

 

Islam is not. That's the problem, you have a poor understanding of the very thing you think you oppose.

Islam didn't come to tell you 2+2=4, it came to teach you to live in peace, to accept every opinion, no matter how stupid they might be. 

 

 

 

 

 

You're not educated enough if you think religion is a barrier to access to education.

The education is, or should be searching the knowledge. Developing knowledge. Denying the most accurate knowledge doesn't go well with that. Of course that's not always the case but for those who directly believe their religion's holy writings (I'm now speaking about at least major religions, and most of minor ones) deny the most accurate knowledge about many fields of study.

As a Muslim, it's a duty in Islam to pursuit for knowledge.

BTW, I think you've mixed science with education. *I don't want to assume, but I think you're an atheist. Because that's what they do 99% of the time.*

I don't quite catch what you mean. What kind of knowledge you are spreading then?

Are you denying that the education should be bound on the most accurate knowledge?

One point for you thou, I'm an atheist.

 

Yay I was right!

It doesn't matter what knowledge it is, as long as you're using it for a good reason. 

And no, I'm not denying anything. What irritates me is people mixing subjects together. Also as I mentioned above, the problem is people have a poor understanding of the things you think they oppose.

[Emilia1320]

...

 

Actually, in hindsight, I think even I would disagree with myself!  That's what happens when you write things immediately after the New Year's celebrations! I would like to point out, though, that I did say that 'The more religiously fundamental one is, the more one diverts from this line of thinking', but I guess that doesn't change much. 

 

There are a few points I would like to highlight, though. First of all, you're indeed correct - in fact I have lived in Norway all my life until I started at university.

 

1. I don't consider those who don't believe in god Christian. That's the single most important part of the Christian belief, and I don't think it's fair to say that this particular aspect counters science - yet. Although the merits of god can be dissected and disproved, the existence of a god itself has not. Whether or not it is irrational is in itself not a substantial proof against the existence of god, though a good indicator that its existence is highly improbable. I understand that science values rationality, but there are things considered irrational in the past that are considered rational today (or vice versa), simply because not all facts were on the table. As such, one cannot refute its existence based on perceived lack of rationality alone. 

 

2. Some of my friends treat it more as a culture, but some of them definitely treat Christianity as a proper religion. As for their influences, I honestly don't know, and the answer to your third 'reason' would depend heavily on which friend we're talking about. Some love debates, whilst at least a few of them shy away from too serious discussions. 

 

3. I don't really see the problem with the inconsistency presented by Craig and the introduction of evolution in Christianity - or any other religion for that matter. They're already full of inconsistencies already, one more is not going to do much. In fact, that inconsistency actually brings the religion (or, at least, those who accept evolution) closer to the real world in terms of science, and I think that's welcoming. The Christian church was furiously against describing the world as round before as well. 

 

4. Belief in mysticism can be consistent with philosophy on many levels. There is something called spiritual philosophy which deals exactly with mysticism. I also know for a fact that a lot of people consider the existence of god(s) a spiritual AND a philosophical question, and as such philosophical thoughts play a major role in the religious foundation. Although departing from the more narrow 'philosophy of life' aspect we were discussing, philosophy still plays a role here. 

 

5. I really enjoyed Hitchen's talk, but I get the sense that he's more referring to organised religion. Maybe that's just me, but I'm not a fan of organised religion. Most commonly, it is the organised religion that goes against scientific breakthroughs. Also, I am a bit unsure if religions is less 'moral' than what already exists. I need some more time to think about that.

 

 

Another point to bring up is that standing from your point of view (in which you claims that religion is nothing more than philosophies of life), then it seems that there’s no difference in the nature of religion vs socialism, because both of them mainly concern themselves with the philosophy of life. However, we never speak of them as the same thing, even in the world nowadays. Why? Because religion has mysticism in it, while socialism doesn’t!

 

Now, here you got me completely wrong. Religion is a set of chiefly spiritual beliefs, socialism is a political ideology. Just like the fact that Islam and Islamism is far from being the same; Islam is a set of spiritual beliefs, Islamism is a political ideology. 

Also, although I understand your point, I would argue that socialism in its core is more about the functions of state and politics rather than a life philosophy. It assumes that humans are all equal and that everything should be communal, and builds a political and economic theory that is assumed to result in such a society. Some do religiously believe in socialism, but socialism is not comparable in and by itself to religions. Religion is built not on politics nor economics, but on spirituality. 

 

 

 

 

You're not educated enough if you think religion is a barrier to access to education.

 

Religion can very well be a barrier to the access to education. Look at how many girls who are deprived of education around the world due to certain religious beliefs, for instance. Or, how many people who are not educated about the evolution theory, because it counter their beliefs.

 

 

As a Muslim, it's a duty in Islam to pursuit for knowledge.

 

What kind of knowledge? Knowledge is a vast word with many different connotations. If you're open to all kinds of knowledge, you will know that, objectively and logically speaking, all religions are fallacious in one way or another and that it is improbable that a god exists.

Islam is not. That's the problem, you have a poor understanding of the very thing you think you oppose.

Islam didn't come to tell you 2+2=4, it came to teach you to live in peace, to accept every opinion, no matter how stupid they might be. 

 

 

You're not educated enough if you think religion is a barrier to access to education.

The education is, or should be searching the knowledge. Developing knowledge. Denying the most accurate knowledge doesn't go well with that. Of course that's not always the case but for those who directly believe their religion's holy writings (I'm now speaking about at least major religions, and most of minor ones) deny the most accurate knowledge about many fields of study.

As a Muslim, it's a duty in Islam to pursuit for knowledge.

BTW, I think you've mixed science with education. *I don't want to assume, but I think you're an atheist. Because that's what they do 99% of the time.*

I don't quite catch what you mean. What kind of knowledge you are spreading then?

Are you denying that the education should be bound on the most accurate knowledge?

One point for you thou, I'm an atheist.

Yay I was right!

It doesn't matter what knowledge it is, as long as you're using it for a good reason. 

And no, I'm not denying anything. What irritates me is people mixing subjects together. Also as I mentioned above, the problem is people have a poor understanding of the things you think they oppose.

Of course it does matter what kind of knowledge you are spreading!

The teachers have the duty to spread the best knowledge mankind has at the moment. If they tell things that go against it that's called lying. We are privileged to educate ourselves. With privilege, we will have also responsibility. With this privilege we should worship education, and have enough source-criticism to not swallow everything that's told to us. Those of us who end up passing onwards education, i.e become teachers / some other way spread knowledge around, should always spread the knowledge that has evidence behind it, teach the most accurate theories mankind has at the moment. Of course theories develope all time, but telling something else than the best we have is just shooting this development on leg.

This example about flying unicorn is so seen... So lets take an example about dragon. Let's think that I tell the children that I have a dragon, and other complete bull****. Now who am I? Yes. A liar. Filthy liar.

I would say telling that stuff about religions is same thing. Now here my opinion is propably quite biased because I used to belong to religion and fear the God. I was told lies. I didn't have access to the most accurate scientific knowledge back then as a kid, but now I do and now I see better.

And could I have arguments on that how doesn't education associate with science. Of course the first education propably doesn't. But the goal of education is to spread the knowledge, and the purpose of science is to gain knowledge. Goes together quite well.

Thanks for answering my argument ! And please don't take anything as personal provocation, due my background (religious family, fearing God, all those lies) I have quite strong opinions on this

[Vioh]

Hey alefal, before I reply to your arguments, I’d like to clearly state my point of view:

• Religion should be defined as the belief in the supernatural. I’ll later explain why this should be the case
• Religion doesn’t have a monopoly on human’s emotions & morality

1. I understand that science values rationality, but there are things considered irrational in the past that are considered rational today (or vice versa), simply because not all facts were on the table. As such, one cannot refute its existence based on perceived lack of rationality alone.

 

First of all, religion doesn’t only claim that there’s God, but it claims all sorts of other things in which many of contradict against science. I guess you would agree with me on this point because you and I have mentioned plenty of such contradictions when we replied to SallyShariff. Our opinions only diverge when it comes to the existence of God itself, because you said that I cannot “refute God existence based on perceived lack of rationality alone”. However, I did never say that I refute the existence of God. I never claim to a 100% certainty that God doesn’t exist. I was just saying that because there’s no evidence for it yet, that’s why it’s very implausible to think that God exists. In other words, I don’t claim that the existence of God is completely irrational. Personally, I would say that rationality-irrationality is not a black-and-white thing. But the idea of God’s existence is as close to the absolute irrationality as one can get. Let’s take an example. String theory in physics can be considered as irrational nowadays among people, because we haven’t gotten evidence for it yet, but it’s still more rational/plausible than the idea of God, because string theory is actually extrapolated from something we understand very well (namely quantum theory & relativity); while it is not the same case with religion. So in general, there’re different shades of irrationality. And I don’t completely refute the idea of God. I just think that it’s very implausible/irrational based on our current evidence.

 

Secondly, as I have mentioned before in my previous posts, it’s not the job of scientists to disprove the theory of God; this is because scientists are skeptical of it. As Andy Sebastian rightly pointed out, “burden of proof lies in the person making the claim, not the skeptic”

 

Finally, I’d like to point out that the belief in God alone doesn’t contradict with science; it’s only incompatible with science because of these following 3 reasons:

• Science has taught us that we should only believe in things that we have evidence for. So believing in God is not compatible with the scientific ideology
• Believing in God is lazy, because this belief would neglect the importance of science to clearly explain things
• We will fall into a logic trap if we believe in God, because we can then ask the question: “Who created God?” And if that answer is some other higher being, then we can continue to ask: “Who then created that being?”, and so on. In other words, this logic can go on forever, and doesn’t resolve anything whatsoever

Let me give you an example. Quantum Entanglement is one of the most bizarre & counter-intuitive phenomenon within physics. And I can promise you that nobody has ever understood the mechanism of quantum entanglement. Now, it is completely VALID to claim that it is God who makes quantum entanglement happen; and this idea does not contradict against the knowledge established in physics so far. However, this idea of God is incompatible with science because of the 3 above reasons.

 

3. In fact, that inconsistency actually brings the religion (or, at least, those who accept evolution) closer to the real world in terms of science, and I think that's welcoming.

 

As I said earlier, this is a good thing standing from my point of view because these religious people actually now support some aspects of science. However, what i was really saying was that it is bad for religion itself, because it just shows the weakness of the absolutist view from the religious texts. Hence, don’t think that I’m against this movement of the religious people to reconcile with science. In fact I’m using this as one of my arguments to persuade the religious people to stop following the religion (because of religious inconsistency)

 

4. Belief in mysticism can be consistent with philosophy on many levels. There is something called spiritual philosophy which deals exactly with mysticism.

 

Notice that I do not support all types of philosophy. I’m ok with philosophers talking about moral philosophy, or political philosophy. But I am against the metaphysical philosophy (which is another way of saying mysticism or spiritual philosophy). So either way, I would still be against religious mysticism whether you claim it to be philosophy or not.

 

Also, although I understand your point, I would argue that socialism in its core is more about the functions of state and politics rather than a life philosophy. [...] Religion is built not on politics nor economics, but on spirituality. 

 

Perhaps it was bit confusing of me to use socialism as an example here, because as you said, socialism is a political philosophy. However, what about Kant’s moral philosophy? Standing from you point of view (i.e. “religion is nothing more than moral philosophy”), then you basically claim that there’s no difference between Kant’s moral philosophy and religion. But as you said it yourself, “religion is built on spirituality”, thus you have just refuted your own definition. In other words, you should not define religion as nothing more than moral philosophy because there's a clear difference between the two.

 

5. I really enjoyed Hitchen's talk, but I get the sense that he's more referring to organised religion.

 

I’m fully aware that Hitchens is all about organized religion. The only reason why I brought this up is because I would like to show you that a large part of religion is ‘organized religion’, because that is how religion is presented to the public. Therefore, defining religion as nothing more than moral philosophy is misleading as it doesn’t reflect the whole nature of religion. Now it’s possible that you can change the definition of religion; but I’m afraid that would be very confusing to everyone. Besides, if you think of religion as being equivalent to moral philosophy, then there’s no need to even use the word ‘religion’ then

 

Now I’d like to explain why I claimed earlier than religion should be defined as ‘beliefs in the supernatural’. First of all, religion does NOT have a monopoly on the question of morality, because ethics/morality is the characteristics of the humanity. Everyone, religious or atheist, can do good things as well as bad things. This is clear because I can easily name both religious & non-religious people who have done good things as well as bad things in the past. And because of this, the biggest difference between religion and atheism should be: Religion needs the supernatural to explain morality, while atheism doesn’t need the supernatural to explain morality. And I believe that the definition of religion should tackle this biggest difference, thus religion should be defined as ‘beliefs in the supernatural”.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Vioh

[Esteban]

I do not believe in a higher power because, in my opinion, the idea of a higher power which desires only the best for humanity is contradicted when said deity does not stop humans from doing intentional harm to each other. Case in point? War. Prison. POW camps. Agent Orange. Slavery. The Trail of Tears. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 9/11. Hitler. Stalin. Mussolini. And any and all atrocities of this planet. 

 

What god would tolerate that?

 

Because, since "God" is omnipotent, then s/he truly would have the powers to stop humans from doing bad things to each other. Therefore, god, logically, must not exist.

 

Although I do not believe in God, do not interpret my beliefs as a sign of hostility to yours. I respect and appreciate all viewpoints on religion. All I ask is that you keep an open mind.

 

--Esteban

[Aras]

 

It doesn't matter what knowledge it is, as long as you're using it for a good reason. 

And no, I'm not denying anything. What irritates me is people mixing subjects together. Also as I mentioned above, the problem is people have a poor understanding of the things you think they oppose.

Of course it does matter what kind of knowledge you are spreading!

The teachers have the duty to spread the best knowledge mankind has at the moment. If they tell things that go against it that's called lying. We are privileged to educate ourselves. With privilege, we will have also responsibility. With this privilege we should worship education, and have enough source-criticism to not swallow everything that's told to us. Those of us who end up passing onwards education, i.e become teachers / some other way spread knowledge around, should always spread the knowledge that has evidence behind it, teach the most accurate theories mankind has at the moment. Of course theories develope all time, but telling something else than the best we have is just shooting this development on leg.

This example about flying unicorn is so seen... So lets take an example about dragon. Let's think that I tell the children that I have a dragon, and other complete bull****. Now who am I? Yes. A liar. Filthy liar.

I would say telling that stuff about religions is same thing. Now here my opinion is propably quite biased because I used to belong to religion and fear the God. I was told lies. I didn't have access to the most accurate scientific knowledge back then as a kid, but now I do and now I see better.

And could I have arguments on that how doesn't education associate with science. Of course the first education propably doesn't. But the goal of education is to spread the knowledge, and the purpose of science is to gain knowledge. Goes together quite well.

Thanks for answering my argument ! And please don't take anything as personal provocation, due my background (religious family, fearing God, all those lies) I have quite strong opinions on this

 

 

1- It's not my problem, neither religion's that you didn't have any access to 'the most accurate scientific knowledge'. I've repeated that many time, I'll do it again. My religion Islam (meaning Allah) tells me to ask, to wonder, to explore etc. not to use it against Him, but to praise him. To see how great He is.

I love science (Physics and Maths particularly) because it gives you answers, but do you ever wonder why the answers are the way they are? I mean, The reason why things are the way they are. I'm 99% sure your answer is 'they just are', because I know how you think, you've set your mind not to believe that there's a Creator for those answers. Islam is that Peace. Islam is a lifestyle. Islam give answers for most of the questions you have before you go to sleep  >>   .

And yeah, I also want to see 'evidence' when it comes to science. But in religion, you can call all the creations of God (Allah) evidence. I'm sure you find this rather humorous, but try to see and think. 

Conclusion, it's perfectly fine to be religious and scientific at the same time, as long as you know the reasons why you use the two. 

 

P.S. If you have extra time, take a look at Islam during the 800 to 1100 A.D. And maybe a search for the stars found by Muslim etc.

 

 

#Peace

[Emilia1320]

It doesn't matter what knowledge it is, as long as you're using it for a good reason. 

And no, I'm not denying anything. What irritates me is people mixing subjects together. Also as I mentioned above, the problem is people have a poor understanding of the things you think they oppose.

Of course it does matter what kind of knowledge you are spreading!

The teachers have the duty to spread the best knowledge mankind has at the moment. If they tell things that go against it that's called lying. We are privileged to educate ourselves. With privilege, we will have also responsibility. With this privilege we should worship education, and have enough source-criticism to not swallow everything that's told to us. Those of us who end up passing onwards education, i.e become teachers / some other way spread knowledge around, should always spread the knowledge that has evidence behind it, teach the most accurate theories mankind has at the moment. Of course theories develope all time, but telling something else than the best we have is just shooting this development on leg.

This example about flying unicorn is so seen... So lets take an example about dragon. Let's think that I tell the children that I have a dragon, and other complete bull****. Now who am I? Yes. A liar. Filthy liar.

I would say telling that stuff about religions is same thing. Now here my opinion is propably quite biased because I used to belong to religion and fear the God. I was told lies. I didn't have access to the most accurate scientific knowledge back then as a kid, but now I do and now I see better.

And could I have arguments on that how doesn't education associate with science. Of course the first education propably doesn't. But the goal of education is to spread the knowledge, and the purpose of science is to gain knowledge. Goes together quite well.

Thanks for answering my argument ! And please don't take anything as personal provocation, due my background (religious family, fearing God, all those lies) I have quite strong opinions on this

 

1- It's not my problem, neither religion's that you didn't have any access to 'the most accurate scientific knowledge'. I've repeated that many time, I'll do it again. My religion Islam (meaning Allah) tells me to ask, to wonder, to explore etc. not to use it against Him, but to praise him. To see how great He is.

I love science (Physics and Maths particularly) because it gives you answers, but do you ever wonder why the answers are the way they are? I mean, The reason why things are the way they are. I'm 99% sure your answer is 'they just are', because I know how you think, you've set your mind not to believe that there's a Creator for those answers. Islam is that Peace. Islam is a lifestyle. Islam give answers for most of the questions you have before you go to sleep  >>   .

And yeah, I also want to see 'evidence' when it comes to science. But in religion, you can call all the creations of God (Allah) evidence. I'm sure you find this rather humorous, but try to see and think. 

Conclusion, it's perfectly fine to be religious and scientific at the same time, as long as you know the reasons why you use the two. 

 

P.S. If you have extra time, take a look at Islam during the 800 to 1100 A.D. And maybe a search for the stars found by Muslim etc.

 

 

#Peace

Peace, friend, I never blamed you or Islam for my problems. They were Christianity's problems, thou this kind of problems are seen with Islam as well. Think about those kids shot by Taleban, or what Isis is doing. Now, I don't know if that's what your Religion tells to do. I guess that no. Or so I've heard. I apologize for not knowing better, but those things are done in the name of your god. I know that many, if not most muslims judge these actions and they are actually victims of them since it gives whole group bad reputation.

I don't know the true nature of this universe, but I am certain that as physics develops it will be found out. And yes, you know my mindset quite well, you are right on that I believe laws of physics just are and the rest is made by coincidence. That's the most obivious explanation I think.

But yeah, friend, peace. Thanks for answering my arguments, and have a good day

[anb2016]

Surely other people are going to have different responses, but the reason I don't believe in any god or gods is that I don't have any reason to believe. No child is born believing in a god, it's a behaviour that's picked up from their environment as they grow up. So really, the default position is atheism (Or agnosticism if you like, but personally I think that term is often used as a cop out for various reasons). Beginning with that, there isn't really any convincing argument that I've heard of (and I've heard many) which leads to the conclusion that god(s) exist.

Edit: Just to add: If you care, I didn't have any particular moment or epiphany when I thought about this. I've grown up in a loosely Christian household, as in most of my family identifies as Christian but it's not the entire focus of their lives.

Christianity is just as close to being the "default" as atheism. A baby doesn't "believe" anything, so it can't believe there's no God

[anb2016]

I just can't see how a world as complex as ours could have happened just because. I feel like it's not absurd to believe in an intelligent design