• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Science and Religion, a comparative study [W:222]

RAMOSS said:
Could you care to demonstrate that the claim of your first sentence is true?? How do you know that?? Can you show that isn't just an unsupported axiom? And, please demonstrate that Morality is bound up with cosmic order. What does that mean at all? What do you mean by 'cosmic order'. Clarify what you mean by 'cosmic provenance' also.
Click to expand...
Come now. Do I really need to demonstrate to you that most religions are theistic? And if not theistic, spiritual?
In the religious universe, the order of the universe has meaning, and that meaning is moral. The universe, under religion, is moral. :)
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Science doesn't give the "should". People do, the more informed of which provide better "should"s with a solid scientific grounding.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that pie-in-the-sky self-contradiction.
Science offers no shoulds, but science will ground the liberal elite in coming up with shoulds.
This is a pipe dream, man. :)
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Your argument in this thread is the negative side of religion. Over and over you have called people names, talked about a group as if they are evil. Sounds a lot like hate talk.
Click to expand...

Angel said:
I'm from Missouri. Show me. Show me my constant name-calling. Or admit that is wishful-thinking on your part.
I called Dawkins dopey because of the alliteration and because he is a stupid man. That's a purely descriptive epithet. :)
Click to expand...

FreedomFromAll said:
What a very hypocritical post.
Click to expand...
What a ridiculous post!
You're the one who bears false witness, and I'm the hypocrite. That's rich.
:)
 
If so, are you suggesting that science is not responsible for the use or abuse of its discoveries?
Click to expand...

blarg said:
ok sorry ill try to make it easier to understand

are their any atheists that believe knowledge cant be misused?

the people who abuse knowledge are responsible for it not the process of gathering knowledge itself

and that abuse is not limited to people who dont believe in gods
Click to expand...
So you are answering Yes, yes? Science is not responsible for the A-bomb or chemical weapons, yes?
Did you ever read Mary Shelly's Frankenstein?
Great book! I strongly recommend it.:)
 
blarg said:
but it dosent the very concept makes no sense

it turns what you should or should not do into 2 lists made up by some one else

and removes any reason as to why anything goes into either

and the only reason you want it is your subjective unease over people Behaving in ways you dont want them to

which you at the same time regent as mattering when it comes to how people should act
Click to expand...
Either you don't understand my post or I don't understand your post, or both.
If there is a God, then there's something larger than ourselves in the universe.
If there is no God, then you get the EU, a moral disaster in its last throes.
:)
 
Angel said:
Come now. Do I really need to demonstrate to you that most religions are theistic? And if not theistic, spiritual?
In the religious universe, the order of the universe has meaning, and that meaning is moral. The universe, under religion, is moral. :)
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
 
blarg said:
its inextricably bound up with how beings feel

some of them invent imaginary cosmic forces to try and get people to go along with what they happen to want
Click to expand...
Very cynical notions here. I'm almost sorry for you. :)
 
_Sal said:
thanks that's quite generous of you to be happy for me especially since I suspect you think I am stating a claim which you do not believve
Click to expand...

I assumed when you said you're saved, that you're a Christian.


mmm...and what does that command mean to you?

yes, just remember, I am not Christian so according to your belief I am not saved.


we don't have mutual faith


yeah I don't feel at all confused, in fact I feel quite certain of what my personal gifts are and how I should use them

this is affirmed daily when I see the fruit of my labours
like I said, I know my gifts and use them for the good of the planet

sounds good

no argument against that here...I know how I am led, I am sure of my leading and onward I go







bingo



actually I don't mind you at all,






I have no idea what you mean here

or here

:peace

out
Click to expand...


Well......it makes sense now, why your interpretaton of the Scriptures isn't accurate.
 
Angel said:
THE GODFATHER OF MILITANT ATHEISM

Darwin and the case for 'militant atheism'
Dawkins argues that there is no doubt that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is true and, unlike some other scholars of the subject, says belief in evolution is not compatible with faith in religion. In fact, he argues, science and religion undermine each other.

"I believe a true understanding of Darwinism is deeply corrosive to religious faith," Dawkins says in his TED Talk.

There's no room for a God in the world as he sees it, and he believes atheists should be forceful in opposing religion.
Darwin and the case for 'militant atheism' - CNN.com


Militant atheism | Richard Dawkins
Feb 2002
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A
Click to expand...
We have a choice

We are at a crossroads

Humanity at a crossroads

That's where we are today

We can follow Jesus, Buddha, or any of the other evangels of moral order

or

We can follow Dopey Dick Dawkins

off the Moral Cliff...

;)​
 
Angel said:
So you are answering Yes, yes? Science is not responsible for the A-bomb or chemical weapons, yes?
Did you ever read Mary Shelly's Frankenstein?
Great book! I strongly recommend it.:)
Click to expand...

since science is not a person no no its not
 
Angel said:
Social order, solace, morality, a sense of community, education.

Without faith the human condition is absurd.
:)
Click to expand...

ya dont need it

and you still seem rather absurd with it
 
Angel said:
Either you don't understand my post or I don't understand your post, or both.
If there is a God, then there's something larger than ourselves in the universe.
If there is no God, then you get the EU, a moral disaster in its last throes.
:)
Click to expand...

if

and theirs lots of things larger then me mountains planets galaxy's record setting pinatas so what?

we have the eu any way dosent seem all that bad dont think it disproves the existence of god though
 
Angel said:
Very cynical notions here. I'm almost sorry for you. :)
Click to expand...

not cynical at all morality makes no sense with out your own feelings and you try to scare me into going along whit you because of it

your gods are your creation made in your own image to get what you want i dont care for it so you can shove it back from whence it came
sorry you feel so bad
 
Angel said:
Sense.
Click to expand...

yes its sense your bull ****ting us and yourself to make yourself feel better and to get people to do what you want also in order to make yourself feel better
 
Angel said:
We have a choice

We are at a crossroads

Humanity at a crossroads

That's where we are today

We can follow Jesus, Buddha, or any of the other evangels of moral order

or

We can follow Dopey Dick Dawkins

off the Moral Cliff...

;)​
Click to expand...

believing in your superstitions and judging others by faith seems immoral i dont want that done to me

so how about we use what ever seems good and discard the bits that seem bad
 
blarg said:
Angel said:
We have a choice

We are at a crossroads

Humanity at a crossroads

That's where we are today

We can follow Jesus, Buddha, or any of the other evangels of moral order

or

We can follow Dopey Dick Dawkins

off the Moral Cliff...

;)​
Click to expand...
believing in your superstitions and judging others by faith seems immoral i dont want that done to me
Click to expand...
According to you, when you say immoral, you're merely saying you're feelings are hurt. So what?
blarg said:
so how about we use what ever seems good and discard the bits that seem bad
Click to expand...
Uh-huh. You and 6 billion others deciding what's good and what's bad. Good luck with that.
 
Angel said:
According to you, when you say immoral, you're merely saying you're feelings are hurt. So what?

Uh-huh. You and 6 billion others deciding what's good and what's bad. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

im also saying that applies to you guess we just have to band together with like minded folks to try and get are way :mrgreen:

it how the world works we are doing it right now
 
Angel said:
Good luck with that pie-in-the-sky self-contradiction.
Science offers no shoulds, but science will ground the liberal elite in coming up with shoulds.
This is a pipe dream, man. :)
Click to expand...

How do you know what you know? By what method do you gather, judge, keep or reject information?

Second part: does more information lead to better decisions, or less information? Generally speaking.
 
blarg said:
im also saying that applies to you guess we just have to band together with like minded folks to try and get are way :mrgreen:

it how the world works we are doing it right now
Click to expand...
You just think we're doing it right now. We have behind us three thousand years of religious morality in the service of civilization.
You're dreaming, man.
 
Angel said:
You just think we're doing it right now. We have behind us three thousand years of religious morality in the service of civilization.
You're dreaming, man.
Click to expand...

that and more of people not agreeing on whats right and wrong and arguing and fighting for what they want not saying you dont get big blocks of like minded people but that dosent create a magical universal code of conduct for every one

or do you have a 3000 year period of universal global consensus that im just not aware of

if not your the one with the dream and it seems like that dream is to scare every one into doing what you want

it is not going to happen
 
EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS
a philosophical meme

ugkmsEE.jpg


or

"Dopey Dick Dawkins Leads the Way!"

by Angel​
 
Angel said:
EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS
a philosophical meme

ugkmsEE.jpg


or

"Dopey Dick Dawkins Leads the Way!"

by Angel​
Click to expand...

nah every ones going the same way in that pic thats what your after
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom