Religion or Science

[Marshal Murat]

Religion or Science?

Which is more important to our society? Do they need or deserve the same amount of respect in the world at large? Is one an outdated form of thinking, the other a step forward? Is this thread going to be banned a minute after conception? Are they two sides to a coin? Do people put too much faith in science?

A friendly discussion so that we can draw off those who would try to destroy the other thread about Science being the New Religion.



(Seems strangely reminiscent of another article)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Which is more important to our society? Do they need or deserve the same amount of respect in the world at large? Is one an outdated form of thinking, the other a step forward?

Well my position is they are both needed equally for balance and understanding.

[Zaknafien]

here I shall briefly summarize how science is superior to religion in terms of improving the lives, health, and welfare of humanity on a very basic level and all around the world. If man did not question the foolishness of religion and turn to science, we'd still believe the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, flies came from god's displeasure, diseases are caused by the same, etc, etc etc.

Sanitation & Cleanliness:

What has religion done in the past millennia to improve sanitation and cleanliness? Little to nothing. Science, however, has informed us of the ways in which disease can be spread through improperly handled water and poor hygiene. Science has also provided the tools to make water safer to drink and to clean up both ourselves and our surroundings to greatly reduce the risk of disease. Countless people have been saved from sickness and death through this information.

Fighting Disease:

Disease in general is not something which religion has helped fight; on the contrary, myths about the origins of disease have only made things worse. Science, however, has identified the bacteria and viruses which cause disease, how they work, how to fight them, and more. Through evolutionary theory we know that the fight against pathogens is endless because they will constantly evolve, but science gives us the tools to continue the fight with. Religion does not and often inhibits the effort.


Human Longevity:

Humans today live much longer on average than they used to, with the longest lives occurring in the industrialized West. This is not a coincidence: it is due to the use of science to fight disease, improve hygiene, and most importantly to improve the chances of survival in childhood. People are living longer because they use science to better understand and manipulate the world around them. Religion has not contributed to this.

Communication & Community:

People today can communicate with each other across vast distances in ways that would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago. This facilitates not only the transmission of useful information, but also the development of new and dynamic human communities. All of this is possible through the use of science to create new technology. Religion has made great use of these abilities, but has contributed nothing to their basic development.

Food Production & Distribution:

People need to eat to survive, and while religion might encourage giving food to those who need it most, it does nothing to help grow more of it and more efficiently. Humans have used basic scientific tools to improve food production for millennia, but in recent times that has increased geometrically through the use of chemical analysis, satellite records, and even genetic manipulation. Science makes it possible to feed more people more efficiently with less land.

New Materials:

Everything we make must be made from some raw material. In the past the options were limited; today, however, there is a wealth of materials that are lighter, stronger, and often better than what was available before. Religion did not create plastics, carbon fiber, or even steel. Science and the scientific method allow people to develop new materials for new tasks, making it possible to do so much that we take for granted today.

Understanding Sexuality & Reproduction:

Science has provided invaluable insights into how human sexuality and reproduction work. We understand not only how and why things function, but also how and why they fail to function. This makes it possible to correct for errors and for people who previously were unable to have children to now successfully do so. Religion not only has not contributed to this, but in the past it has inhibited our understanding through myths and fables.

Understanding Our Real Place in the Universe:

It should go without saying that we cannot improve our position if we don't know what that position really is. Science has provided tremendous information about our place in nature, about our planet's place in the solar system, and about our galaxy's place in the universe. There is much to learn, but what we know already has been put to great use. Religion has only ever offered myths, all of which have proven to be wrong and misleading.

Humanity Needs More Science, Not More Religion:

It can be argued that there is much more to life than improved sanitation, improved hygiene, fighting disease, increased food production, new materials for building things, improved communication, and so forth. On the other hand, there isn't nearly as much life without those things — and those who are alive will have to endure more hardship and suffering as well. The ability of science to improve the very basic necessities of life is without question. The fact that religion doesn't even come close is also without question.

Why does such an extreme difference exist? Science's success depends upon the scientific method and upon methodological naturalism. The scientific method ensures that new ideas are thoroughly tested and vetted before being accepted. Methodological naturalism ensures that science conforms to the boundaries of the natural world rather than the boundaries of wishful thinking.

Religions neither incorporate nor value either of these methods. The diversity of religion prevents us making many generalizations about all religions, but I am unaware of any that develop and test their claims on the scientific method or rely upon methodological naturalism when examining the world.

This doesn't require the conclusion that religion is valueless because not everything in life can, does, or needs to incorporate the principles of science to be worth anything. What we can conclude, however, is that in the past couple of centuries science has done far more to improve the basic living and survival standards of humanity than religion has in the past several millennia. Religious leaders like to claim that we need more religion in order to solve our problems, but with most problems we could probably benefit from more science instead.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I would submit that science, while great for the body, provides nothing for the soul. The mind gets a kick from both.

What does science tell us about ourselves? That we are animals? Does it gives us ethics? Does it teach us compassion? Does it give us something to hold onto when we need it?

I would submit that it doesn't. When I have a problem personal I need to solve I will either sit down and read philosophy or I will get down on my knees and prey. I've never fealt the need to do equations to sort out my problems.

The current problems in the Public Sector in Britain and America are excellant evidence that science (mathematics) cannot predict human behaviour. They said we were all out for what we can get and that if you give civil servants targets and rewards they will work better.

It didn't work. Which suggest the econimists were wrong and Civil Servants were actually out for more than power or money.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The title itself is an affront to common sense. Like it or not most people feel there is more to all this than just being born, living and dying. Were not exactly sure what it is but its there all the same. Thats why theres that thread on what is spirituality? Others call us insane. But whos to judge?

[Zaknafien]

well like it or not thats foolish. im not going to deny anyone the chance to believe in what they want to make them feel like their lives mean something or that they're special; whatever it takes to make you be a good person is fine with me as long as its moral and peaceful. but randomness and chaos rule the universe, your life is only a flicker in the cosmic span of time, and in the end all you are or ever were is a collection of molecules made of star-dust in millenia past. thats why you should make the most of the life you have, do good works, understand the universe you live in, and enjoy yourself.

[HoreTore]

Well, I don't need a book to tell me right from wrong, I can figure that out for myself. However, I can't figure out how to cure myself of diseases other than the most common ones, what the weather is likely to be tomorrow, and hundreds of other things.

So, I have absolutely no need for religion, in fact I have a need for the absence of religion, but I depend on science to live.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

well like it or not thats foolish. im not going to deny anyone the chance to believe in what they want

How nice of you. Thanks. Im not either. You really think you belief in aliens is superior to a belief that we all came from some grand design. It makes more sense that all this was an accident?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well, I don't need a book to tell me right from wrong, I can figure that out for myself.

Does that apply to everyone. Do you think you could if it hadnt been drilled into you since birth?


I can figure that out for myself. However, I can't figure out how to cure myself of diseases other than the most common ones, what the weather is likely to be tomorrow, and hundreds of other things.

Ancient man could. Tribes in the amazon can.


So, I have absolutely no need for religion, in fact I have a need for the absence of religion, but I depend on science to live.

Which makes you a proud member of the Church of Science.:laugh4:

[Zaknafien]

Yes. there is an astounding amount of evidence that evolution of life is accidental and random based on outside influences. the belief in extraterrestial life is only logical given the number of stars in the universe. hopefully it will soon be proven beyond any doubt with the latest vehicles on mars and around jupiter, not to mention the discovery of "new earth" so close to our own. But im sure that then the creationists will find some way to squeeze these new discoveries into their theologies too, just like they did when science proved the truth of our solar system, etc.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I fail to see how a belief in a higher being is any more foolish than a belief in anything else, such as the existane of extra-terrestrial life.

We have zero real evidence for either. With respect Zak I think you should stop presenting your beliefs as facts and flat rejecting everyone else's it destroys your arguement.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

With respect Zak I think you should stop presenting your beliefs as facts and flat rejecting everyone else's it destroys your arguement.

A few weeks of getting bashed around in the back room should cure that :laugh4: I keep telling him moderation is key. You cant just say Im right and your wrong because your foolish although I support your right to be a fool and get away with it back here.

[Zaknafien]

I fail to see how a belief in a higher being is any more foolish than a belief in anything else, such as the existane of extra-terrestrial life.

We have zero real evidence for either. With respect Zak I think you should stop presenting your beliefs as facts and flat rejecting everyone else's it destroys your arguement.

because belief in a higher being is like believing in a unicorn. there is no evidence that it exists, and the empirical data we have suggests it does not exist. alien life, on the other hand, is supported by empirical data and basic logic. the two are not equatable.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

and the empirical data we have suggests it does not exist.

Oh please do tell more?


alien life, on the other hand, is supported by empirical data and basic logic.

It is? So then your position is most people in the world are illogical?

[Zaknafien]

It is? So then your position is most people in the world are illogical?

Uh, well yes, I think most people would agree that the large majority of people on the earth are, well, stupid.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

because belief in a higher being is like believing in a unicorn. there is no evidence that it exists, and the empirical data we have suggests it does not exist. alien life, on the other hand, is supported by empirical data and basic logic. the two are not equatable.

I'm not going to argue with you about Alien life. I know of no empirical data that suggests God does not exist however.

[Zaknafien]

What do we mean when we say that something exists? As far as human beings are concerned, nothing exists unless it manifests itself in some form, shape or manner to man or to his extended sensory perceptions.

If something is claimed to exist but does not impinge on man in any way whatsoever, we can safely say that it does not exist as far as human existence is concerned. This purported mirage may still exist somewhere in the universe or another universe. However, since this alleged object or event does not manifest itself to us, it does not affect us in any way whatsoever and we must simply state that it does not exist as far as human beings are concerned.

Religious people argue that, although they cannot prove that god exists, atheists cannot prove that god does not exist. This argument is inherently faulty.

It is logically impossible to prove that an object or event does not exist. However, it is the essence and the backbone of science to provide evidence that something does exist. If something exists, such as energy, matter or space, it manifests itself to us by objective evidence. We can measure such manifestations or we can take objective images of them.

It is axiomatic in the affairs of man, and steeped in common sense that, whoever makes a claim, has to prove its validity. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

If a person should claim that the moon is made of green cheese, he has to prove that the moon actually consists of green cheese, instead of rock, as established by previous, hard, factual, objective evidence. It is logically impossible and absurd to demand that, whoever does not accept the claim that the moon is made of green cheese, should disprove the claim.

Only persons, who do not utilize logic, will accept as true statements that are completely unsupported by factual evidence. Yet, this form of irrationality and lack of fundamental logic is the foundation of all religions. Since approximately 80 % of the world population accepts the completely unsubstantiated statements of various religions, 80 % of the world population suffers from a severely distorted and thus ineffective worldview.

Christian dogma expects people to believe the fairy tale of Noah’s ark, although it is patently impossible to squeeze even samples of billions of the world’s animals into one small ark. Rational persons consider such stories ludicrous. And yet, such is the brainwashing power of religion, that the majority of the people on earth accept such fairytales as facts.

The bible account of the creation of man and the universe, as set forth in the Book of Genesis, is in such contradiction to irrefutable facts that a rational person cannot help but laugh about such fantasies. It may be all right for children to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, but functional adults are expected to outgrow such fairy tales.

Another absurdity is imbedded in the fact that every religion claims to pray to the one and only true god. How can such contradiction be rationalized? Who is the true god? Allah, or Jesus, or Jehovah, or Buddha, or Krishna?

Where was the Jewish God Jehovah, when Hitler incinerated five million of his chosen people; where was the Buddha when Truman vaporized 250,000 Japanese women and children; where was the Christian God when Stalin killed thirty million Christians?

It defies rationality when religious persons pray to these same gods for individualized help and salvation.

It is pointless to get involved in endless discussions regarding the existence or non-existence of god and the moral qualities of such a god. Such nonsensical and unproductive discussions have raged for the last three thousand years.

One of the problems in theism, the belief system involving a personal god, revolves around the allegedly benign nature of god, the existence of evil, and the resulting inconsistency in the concept of an omnipotent god.

The mere existence of evil in this world makes the existence of a benign god impossible: If god were omnipotent, he could eliminate evil and if he were benign, he would want to do so. Furthermore, if god were all-good, as he is supposed to be, he could not sin. However, if he were all-powerful, he could sin.

The Greek philosopher Epicurus illuminated this dilemma in 300 BC:

If God is willing to prevent evil but is not able to prevent evil, then he is not omnipotent.

If God is able to prevent evil but is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not benevolent.

Evil is either in accordance with God’s intention or contrary to it.

Thus, either God cannot prevent evil or he does not want to prevent evil.

Therefore, it follows that God is either not omnipotent or he is not benevolent. He cannot be both omnipotent and benevolen

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Okay, laying aside the Epicuran part for a second.

God(s) do(es) not impact our reality? Okay, but we're talking about it, so it is present in our conciousness, we just can't detect it with our senses. If everything is a mirage and God is an idea rather than a physical manifestation then you cannot say he doesn't exist because we are arguing about his existance. Therefore the issue of his existance is part of our reality.

Two further problems arise:

1. God created our reality and therefore is by definition not a part of it. If I make a table at no point am I part of the table, though my hand it evident in the making, as is my intent.

2. Logic is obviously broken because it creates paradoxes which it cannot resolve.

As to Noah's Ark, Genesis and Epicurus; consider the following. God is outside our understanding and therefore anything we know about God is imperfect. When Genesis was written it was not possible to concieve of the way in which the world was created, so the story is a missinterpretation. Similarily understanding God's benevolence assumes that we understand God's intent and long term plan. The death of 5 million Jews led to the creation of modern Isreal. You can use that arguement, or even better, you can say that God gave us free will and is not responsible for our actions.

Therefore any evil act is not the responsibility of God, because he chose to give us free will and therefore cannot stop us from doing anything. I find it difficult to believe there was no small voice in the back of Hitler's head, he just didn't listen.

I personnally subscribe to the concept of free will, in which case how can God be directly responsible for my actions or my good or evil intent.

[Strike For The South]

You are cherry picking man. God is ominiptent but he gives us free will also the reward we get after death is much better than anything on this earth. Therefore you should not fear death becuase its just a step

[Gawain of Orkeny]

OK what atheists site is this opinion of yours :beam: taken from? Also would you like me to start posting pages of stuff that refutes that from christian and other religious sites?

Now I see why others hate my cut and paste jobs :laugh4:

[Zaknafien]

Phillipvs is at least logical about his arguments. But you know good and well Phil my good man, that there are scores of radical Christians who believe that the Genesis account is 100% accurate and literal. They're what we call crazy people :)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Phillipvs is at least logical about his arguments. But you know good and well Phil my good man, that there are scores of radical Christians who believe that the Genesis account is 100% accurate and literal. They're what we call crazy people :)


Well, people who totally reject the idea of God out of hand and leave open no room for the possibility he might exist aren't my favourite people, but then I like determined agnostics less. I had this discussion with a girl I know last year and she said that people that don't believe in God break her heart. Especially her friends.

We can deal with the religious extremists together Zak.:beam:

:knight:

On another note, I wonder if the hardline nature of many American Christians flying in the face of common sense is really counter-productive. They aren't able to accept contradiction in the Bible, while I just put it down to human incompetance.

Oh, and don't call my Phil, I don't like how it translates.

[JAG]

You have to ask?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But you know good and well Phil my good man, that there are scores of radical Christians who believe that the Genesis account is 100% accurate and literal. They're what we call crazy people :)

Now thats what Im talking about. Do I believe hat the Genesis account is 100% accurate and literal? Hell no. But I still dont think their crazy. You should be more careful how you phrase things and label people. Some might take offense.

Im guilty of the same in many a topic I must admit. Those concerning Islam come to mind.

[Zaknafien]

Apologies :) And yes, I beleive that the work of scores of cosmologists and physicists and the large amounts of studies done on the expnansion of the universe and the power of prayer and the placebo effecft and the evolution of life on earth has done much to empirically prove "God" as the Judeo-Christians define it, does not exist. Physicist Victor Stenger has done some great work in this area, his newest book is enlightening. "God: The Failed Hypothesis".

[Spetulhu]

Two further problems arise:

1. God created our reality and therefore is by definition not a part of it. If I make a table at no point am I part of the table, though my hand it evident in the making, as is my intent.

2. Logic is obviously broken because it creates paradoxes which it cannot resolve.

That's why you use Occam's Razor. A universe that just appears is one incredible happening. A Creator that just appears and then creates the universe by means unknown is two incredible happenings. Therefore the first option is the logical choice until we know more about it.

Tables, on the other hand, are often man-made. We don't need to see the guy who built it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's why you use Occam's Razor. A universe that just appears is one incredible happening. A Creator that just appears and then creates the universe by means unknown is two incredible happenings. Therefore the first option is the logical choice until we know more about it.

Tables, on the other hand, are often man-made. We don't need to see the guy who built it.

That's a fallacy. You only know tables are man made because you have been told men make them. How do you know all tables are made by men, maybe 90% are actually made by rabbits.

Who said the creator ever appeared, further, if you have already accepted one incredible happening what does one more matter?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

you know all tables are made by men, maybe 90% are actually made by rabbits.

More likely they were made by robots.:whip: Now If i didnt know that the robots were made by man I might assume that tables are made by robots and if you tell me their made by man Ill tell you your crazy I saw the robots making them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Don't disrespect the rabbits, remember Monty Python.

[Zaknafien]

well thats venturing into the realm of ridiculousness--like saying "I dont know China exists since I've never been there."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Which was a perfectly reasonable position in Mediaeval Europe, or Ancient Greece.

[HoreTore]

Does that apply to everyone. Do you think you could if it hadnt been drilled into you since birth?

My morals contradicts every religion I know of. So yes, I am able to form opinions that haven't been drilled into me from birth. Besides, there is a difference between learning morals from a religion, and from a society. The former is set in stone, the latter is changing.


Ancient man could. Tribes in the amazon can.

Uhm, no, they cannot. They can deal with the very basics, not the complicated stuff.


Which makes you a proud member of the Church of Science.:laugh4:

Again, "uhm, no". I prefer either socialist or agnostic.

[Spetulhu]

well thats venturing into the realm of ridiculousness--like saying "I dont know China exists since I've never been there."

That's philosophy for you. Perhaps your dinner table doesn't exist when you don't look at it? Perhaps things only exist in your own mind?

There's only one way to debate people who claim all exists only in their imagination: kick them in the crotch, then ask them why they hate themself so much!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My morals contradicts every religion I know of. So yes, I am able to form opinions that haven't been drilled into me from birth. Besides, there is a difference between learning morals from a religion, and from a society. The former is set in stone, the latter is changing.

Actually morals don't change, you reject old morals and take up modified ones. Changing morals are moral.


Uhm, no, they cannot. They can deal with the very basics, not the complicated stuff.

You're not any smarter than they are and you don't know any better, you just have too much time on your hands to think about these things.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

My morals contradicts every religion I know of. So yes, I am able to form opinions that haven't been drilled into me from birth

I doubt you can support that claim.


Besides, there is a difference between learning morals from a religion, and from a society. The former is set in stone, the latter is changing.

Not much really. In many cases their the same. In fact Id venture in most. And do we still sacrifice people to the sun god? Do we still worship Thor and Odin or Odin? Religion evolves just like everything else that deals with human endeavor . Nothing is written in stone and even if it were there is still the matter of erosion.

[Zaknafien]

Not much really. In many cases their the same. In fact Id venture in most. And do we still sacrifice people to the sun god? Do we still worship Thor and Odin or Odin? Religion evolves just like everything else that deals with human endeavor . Nothing is written in stone and even if it were there is still the matter of erosion.

Some people still do. How can you say your religion is superior to those who worship the Aesir? Hell, some people still worship Jupiter and Venus.

[Boyar Son]

Some people still do. How can you say your religion is superior to those who worship the Aesir? Hell, some people still worship Jupiter and Venus.

They do? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

You can call religions better than each other like this example

-based on morality

-which morals you live by. Which ever points out the way to live by on those morals the most wins.

Other than that no way to...

[Husar]

So Columbus actually arrived in east India?
I mean he had the empirical data from his route, the logic that the world is round and the knowledge(following out of his logic) that India had to be west of Europe, thus he arrived in east India.:idea2:

It's funny how all religious people are stupid when most of my friends in church actually study at universities, including myself.
Oh wait, that's not a measurement anyway, we'll have to go by the rule of "those who don't believe what I believe are stupid because I say so and I cannot err".

Please allow me to retreat into the corner of shame and stupidity now.:clock:

[Zaknafien]

well if you believe a giant invisible old man with a beard created the universe just for you because you're special...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Who say's he's giant, old or has a beard?

:juggle2:

[Zaknafien]

heh. Uh, this?

EDIT: Removed picture of Terry Gilliam's god from Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Please note: If you want to post pictures, you must host them yourself, not link directly to a web site.

BG

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"Though Shalt not make thyself an Idol or any graven Image"

:oops:

:laugh4:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

EDIT: Removed Zaknafien's picture. BG

Somebodies been watching too many episodes of South Park :laugh4:

[Marshal Murat]

You mean Monty Python.

Christianity has been changing, and for a perfect example the idea of a Christian god being
-Old
-Bearded
-Caucasian

Those are all the symbols of the Roman god Jupiter, who was adapted for the Christian religion. The god Jupiter, adapted from the god Zeus of Greek mythology, adapted from either the Celtic gods or an Asian god.

[Orb]

here I shall briefly summarize how science is superior to religion in terms of improving the lives, health, and welfare of humanity on a very basic level and all around the world. If man did not question the foolishness of religion and turn to science, we'd still believe the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, flies came from god's displeasure, diseases are caused by the same, etc, etc etc.

Completely invalid statements crossed out. Dubious ones italicised.

1) The flat earth thing is a myth invented by Washington Irving. Notable members of the medieval clergy did know and stated that it was spherical.
2) As I recall, in the book of Job, disease is attributed to Satan's work as an attempt to turn man against God, not God's displeasure.
3) It isn't stated (afaik) in the bible that the sun revolves around the earth. This isn't about questioning religion, but about questioning a widely held view.

So, you're prepared to ignore the amount of positive welfare work done by Christians and other religious groups because of their faith? Similarly, there are civil rights and anti-violence movements initiated frequently by the religious.

Communication/Community

These new technologies have also wrecked the traditional communities in many places and are resulting (according to some) in a decline in physical fitness and social skills. This seems to coincide with a rise in crime rate. I know some people who, because of faith and religion, have given up drugs, changed from a violent past and recovered their lives. This is a hell of a lot more important to the community than having more luxury goods with annoying adverts. Additionally, the church itself is a community, which actively does things to help people. Something I doubt most fora do (no insult intended to fora. I love them). Another community influence you could suggest is that people are inspired by religion to produce superior cultural works.

Food

Having excess food in the hands of the middle class isn't exactly as important to the beggars on the streets of Leamington as having dedicated people working to help feed them. Science isn't helping the people who need more food get more food, it's providing a luxury more cheaply.

Science also results in Asian people accidentally starving themselves by spending 45,613,892 hours in a row on World of Warcraft. Should we hold science responsible for these deaths?

Human longevity:
1 - what's the importance of said longevity, if there's no point to it? Senility isn't pleasant (at best embarrassing, at worst maddening), and presumably this longevity contributes to it.
2 - 'whoever believes in me will not perish but receive eternal life' (roughly John 3:16 or something like that. Could have the verse or chapter number off.

If Christianity is right, then it is contributing far, far more vastly to human longevity than any science.

Fighting Disease
Largely irrelevant if the previous quote from John 3:16 is taken into account as fact.

New materials
Yes, useful new materials, for things like killing people. New material production was never hindered by religion and is entirely seperate to it.

'If God is able to prevent evil but is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not benevolent.'

Alternatively, he wants people with personalities and with freedom of choice. If he takes away those choices to prevent evil, noone can choose the right thing and thus be good and thus fit to enter the kingdom of heaven.



It can be argued that there is much more to life than improved sanitation, improved hygiene, fighting disease, increased food production, new materials for building things, improved communication, and so forth. On the other hand, there isn't nearly as much life without those things — and those who are alive will have to endure more hardship and suffering as well. The ability of science to improve the very basic necessities of life is without question. The fact that religion doesn't even come close is also without question.

If you have an eternal life in heaven, then you have a QOL higher than anything science could possibly give you. If you approach something from the assumption that a religion is right, rather than that it is wrong, then religion trumps science.

However, the two can, and do, coexist, and compliment each other and do not need to be compared.

I would say that religion is more important than science, because of the eternal salvation idea.

[Orb]

'Communication & Community:

People today can communicate with each other across vast distances in ways that would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago. This facilitates not only the transmission of useful information, but also the development of new and dynamic human communities. All of this is possible through the use of science to create new technology. Religion has made great use of these abilities, but has contributed nothing to their basic development.'

Which has resulted in the decline of the traditional community. Additionally, the improved communications have led to a far greater scale in modern slaughters/genocides/terrorism than ancient ones.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Religion has made great use of these abilities, but has contributed nothing to their basic development.'
You mean like the printing press ? :laugh4:

[HoreTore]

You're not any smarter than they are and you don't know any better, you just have too much time on your hands to think about these things.

I have a doctor to cure me when I'm sick, and that doctor has a scientist to come up with the thing he needs to cure me.

As for an example to the moral issue, I don't know of any religion who promotes promiscuity, homosexuality, the rejection of the family and marriage. I do.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I have a doctor to cure me when I'm sick, and that doctor has a scientist to come up with the thing he needs to cure me.

And this differs from a witch doctor how?

[Zaknafien]

And this differs from a witch doctor how?

uh, because it generally works.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So do many of the witch doctors cures.

[Zaknafien]

Come on. Seriously? Are you seriously comparing witch doctors to modern medicine? :laugh4:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes I am. We just heard people , I believe even yourself say that science is looking into these things. Where do you think a lot of cures come from? Again your making my point. If its not our science its junk.

[Whacker]

Wow, a real lovely thread here.

My toss into the mix. I don't see any valid reason for religion. Many, many, people lead very good, productive, peaceful, and fulfilling lives without the need for any kind of 'religion'. As for the concept of a soul, suffice to say I do not believe one exists, and as much as I'd like to believe in some concept of an afterlife, I have seen and read nothing in my many years that remotely leads me to this conclusion, in fact it's lead me more towards the opposite.

As for being a part of the "church of science", if that's what people choose to categorize it as then so be it. As for my 'god'... I can touch my god, understand it, interact with it, test and verify it. I believe in the power of the human mind and it's will and ability to understand and learn, and to reject old broken ways and means as they become obsolete or disproved as we progress. I believe that mankind has the ability to learn from past mistakes, and be kind/understanding to each other WITHOUT the need for made-up fairy tales and superstition. THIS is my faith. I can show you my faith, demonstrate it to you. Can you all say the same? Please spare me the peanut butter, banana, and "just look around you" arguments in advance. ~;)

Cheers all

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have a doctor to cure me when I'm sick, and that doctor has a scientist to come up with the thing he needs to cure me.

As for an example to the moral issue, I don't know of any religion who promotes promiscuity, homosexuality, the rejection of the family and marriage. I do.

God gives you eternal life and I haven't needed a doctor for about a decade. Not that I'm saying medicine isn't important, it is, but it's hardly top of my list. You might also want to think about the impetus behind the hippocratic oath.

As far as the moral issue I have to say I can't see any actual morals in your post. Given that morals are generally rules to live by and you are rejecting the traditional moral outlook I'm more concerned to know what you're replacing it with.

Zak: Shame on you, you wrote our Roman medical descriptions. You know that most traditional cures have some basis in fact.

[Sigurd]

[Tongue in cheek]:


Sanitation & Cleanliness:

What has religion done in the past millennia to improve sanitation and cleanliness? Little to nothing. Science, however, has informed us of the ways in which disease can be spread through improperly handled water and poor hygiene. Science has also provided the tools to make water safer to drink and to clean up both ourselves and our surroundings to greatly reduce the risk of disease. Countless people have been saved from sickness and death through this information.

Yeah.. tell that to those women that died in childbirth by the hands of scientists… as for the religious midwifes who knew to wash… this was another story.




Fighting Disease:

Disease in general is not something which religion has helped fight; on the contrary, myths about the origins of disease have only made things worse. Science, however, has identified the bacteria and viruses which cause disease, how they work, how to fight them, and more. Through evolutionary theory we know that the fight against pathogens is endless because they will constantly evolve, but science gives us the tools to continue the fight with. Religion does not and often inhibit the effort.

Bollocks… by the laying on of hands and by utilizing the priesthood they brought back the dead…




Human Longevity:

Humans today live much longer on average than they used to, with the longest lives occurring in the industrialized West. This is not a coincidence: it is due to the use of science to fight disease, improve hygiene, and most importantly to improve the chances of survival in childhood. People are living longer because they use science to better understand and manipulate the world around them. Religion has not contributed to this.

Heh… who lived to see 900 years? Not the people of science.



Communication & Community:

People today can communicate with each other across vast distances in ways that would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago. This facilitates not only the transmission of useful information, but also the development of new and dynamic human communities. All of this is possible through the use of science to create new technology. Religion has made great use of these abilities, but has contributed nothing to their basic development.

Bah… In the blinking of an eye, prophets could hie to Kolob and call down Angels from across the multiverse.



Food Production & Distribution:

People need to eat to survive, and while religion might encourage giving food to those who need it most, it does nothing to help grow more of it and more efficiently. Humans have used basic scientific tools to improve food production for millennia, but in recent times that has increased geometrically through the use of chemical analysis, satellite records, and even genetic manipulation. Science makes it possible to feed more people more efficiently with less land.

Balls.. who took five bread and two fishes and fed 5000?



New Materials:

Everything we make must be made from some raw material. In the past the options were limited; today, however, there is a wealth of materials that are lighter, stronger, and often better than what was available before. Religion did not create plastics, carbon fiber, or even steel. Science and the scientific method allow people to develop new materials for new tasks, making it possible to do so much that we take for granted today.

Yeah right… And who made the elements?



Understanding Sexuality & Reproduction:

Science has provided invaluable insights into how human sexuality and reproduction work. We understand not only how and why things function, but also how and why they fail to function. This makes it possible to correct for errors and for people who previously were unable to have children to now successfully do so. Religion not only has not contributed to this, but in the past it has inhibited our understanding through myths and fables.

Right… and were does these spirit children come from? And who made the woman out of a rib?



Understanding Our Real Place in the Universe:

It should go without saying that we cannot improve our position if we don't know what that position really is. Science has provided tremendous information about our place in nature, about our planet's place in the solar system, and about our galaxy's place in the universe. There is much to learn, but what we know already has been put to great use. Religion has only ever offered myths, all of which have proven to be wrong and misleading.

The position is clear… We are the children of God and it is to his kingdom we return.. at least those who believe. The rest of you heathens will live on the darkside of the moon… Forever!!
[/Tounge in cheek]

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

So do many of the witch doctors cures.

Yes, people in Africa don't need antibiotics, or vaccinations, or anti-retroviral drugs to fight aids, or modern obstetric care! They've got their witch doctors and traditional tribal medicine, and it would clearly be an example of evil cultural hegemony to "impose" our own practices on them.

You'll be telling me you think homeopathy works next.

[Spetulhu]

Yes, people in Africa don't need antibiotics, or vaccinations, or anti-retroviral drugs to fight aids, or modern obstetric care! They've got their witch doctors and traditional tribal medicine, and it would clearly be an example of evil cultural hegemony to "impose" our own practices on them.

You'll be telling me you think homeopathy works next.

Homeopathy is placebo at best, but there are certainly traditional cures that work. The witchdoctor just has little or no knowledge of why it works or if it could work better. There could be unnecessary components because of that old tradition, either unnecessary or creating harmful side effects.

That's one reason for science checking out old cures. You might find some refinable drug to make money on and save people.

[HoreTore]

God gives you eternal life and I haven't needed a doctor for about a decade. Not that I'm saying medicine isn't important, it is, but it's hardly top of my list. You might also want to think about the impetus behind the hippocratic oath.

Medicine is after food the most important thing for us. Without it, we die. The reason we live longer today, is because of medicine. As for eternal life, that will only happen if you choose the correct god, won't it? If Islam is the correct one, for example, then you'll probably burn in hell for an eternity...


As far as the moral issue I have to say I can't see any actual morals in your post. Given that morals are generally rules to live by and you are rejecting the traditional moral outlook I'm more concerned to know what you're replacing it with.

Well, I thought it would be fairly obvious that my morals say that sex is good, any time, any place, with anyone. I don't know of a single religion who doesn't put great restrictions on sex. The only restriction I have, is that all those involved consent to it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well, I thought it would be fairly obvious that my morals say that sex is good, any time, any place, with anyone.

Then may I suggest that your a degenerate :laugh4: Seriously you dont see the fallacy in that position? If you follow your morals you will wind up in jail for one thing.

[HoreTore]

Then may I suggest that your a degenerate :laugh4: Seriously you dont see the fallacy in that position? If you follow your morals you will wind up in jail for one thing.

Fortunately for me, there are no longer any laws against having sex before marriage.

[Sigurd]

Fortunately for me, there are no longer any laws against having sex before marriage.
What he is saying Tore... is that consent isn't enough. You can't have sex with a 15 year old, with consent or not, without risking jail and/or bancruptcy. You can't have sex anywhere you wish without risking jail and/or fines, not even in Norway.
And I haven't even mentioned infidelity issues.

He is right, your morals are under par even in Scandinavia.

[edit]: Oh and VIF sux.. (just had to get that in too) :beam:

[HoreTore]

What he is saying Tore... is that consent isn't enough. You can't have sex with a 15 year old, with consent or not, without risking jail and/or bancruptcy. You can't have sex anywhere you wish without risking jail and/or fines, not even in Norway.
And I haven't even mentioned inidelity issues.

He is right, your morals are under par even in Scandinavia.

Uhm, I thought it was obvious that that wasn't what I was talking about. A minor isn't old enough to give consent. As for the public thingy, that would require the consent of everyone involved, and anyone watching, as well as those owning the place in question, surely count as involved.

The religious moral, of for example christianity, is that sex is restricted to marriage. My moral is that it is not.

And all we really need is a decent striker. A good target man like ivers or jostein flo, I've been saying that for the last 5 years...

[Zaknafien]

I'm not saying that some traditional cares don't work. THe ones that do are what? You guessed it--science.

[Marshal Murat]

The Science that helps with all those diseases also caused diseases. One unfortunate example of this is the drug thalidomide (if I remember correctly). A drug for depression, it caused birth defects to any children born. That is some science.
What of this science? Why is this better than religion?

[Sigurd]

Uhm, I thought it was obvious that that wasn't what I was talking about. A minor isn't old enough to give consent. As for the public thingy, that would require the consent of everyone involved, and anyone watching, as well as those owning the place in question, surely count as involved.

The religious moral, of for example christianity, is that sex is restricted to marriage. My moral is that it is not.

This statement compared to your first statement (under) is completely different. Hard to get consent from the public eye. Consent does not equal age limit but do imply it (age of consent). But you can get tricked.. the law works as good.

But I agree with the out of wedlock thing... I too am guilty of such a transgression.



...my morals say that sex is good, any time, any place, with anyone. I don't know of a single religion who doesn't put great restrictions on sex. The only restriction I have, is that all those involved consent to it.



And all we really need is a decent striker. A good target man like ivers or jostein flo, I've been saying that for the last 5 years...
Yeah right...

[Zaknafien]

I'd say that sure science makes mistakes, but scientists learn from their mistakes and prevent future ones from happening for the benefit of all mankind. (hehe, unless they're a mad scientist). religion is set in its ways and will not change based on outside influences. look at the catholic church's denouncement of condoms. how many millions have gotten AIDS as a result of this? not only do they claim condoms are worthless, they translate that message into the language of the poor in many countries around the world. In fact, Cardinals in Africa have actually told their flocks that condoms CAUSE AIDS. In Muslim countries its even worse, where condoms are only allowed for married couples--despite that in Iran you can buy temporary marraiges (sort of like prostitution), and in Pakistan religious law allows a woman to be sentenced to gang rape for a crime committed by her brother.

Religionists were opposed to the smallpox vaccination because they regarded it as an "Interference" with God's so-called design.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Top tip: Theist is a nice neat word.

Theists are not opposed to the smallpox vaccine. In India it was considered a blessing by some but they still all took the vaccine.

On the other hand Science created AIDS.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

On the other hand Science created AIDS.

Plus all those miracle drugs like cocaine, heroin, morphine and LSD to name a few.

[HoreTore]

Yeah right...

I'll keep saying it for the next 5 years too. Unless we change our tactics, we are bound to remain in the lower half of the league without a target man. With such a player, we are contenders for the title. Just look at the match against rbk, when Lange came on, holm suddenly had all the room in the world, and could play with his strengths. While Sørensen was on, he was forced into duels, and never had room to do anything.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'll keep saying it for the next 5 years too. Unless we change our tactics, we are bound to remain in the lower half of the league without a target man. With such a player, we are contenders for the title. Just look at the match against rbk, when Lange came on, holm suddenly had all the room in the world, and could play with his strengths. While Sørensen was on, he was forced into duels, and never had room to do anything.

Is this religion or science? :laugh4:

Most likely religion :)

[HoreTore]

Is this religion or science? :laugh4:

Most likely religion :)

Well, one of our songs is called "Vålerenga, you're my religion"....

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Damn I though you were talking soccer.

[Grey_Fox]

It's not one or the other - both can coexist happily.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

both can coexist happily.

Both must coexist happily or you have big problems.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

On the other hand Science created AIDS.

What on earth?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You never heard the story that it was a biological weapons program gone wrong

AIDS: 'The Manufactured Virus'
(http://www.apfn.org/apfn/aids.htm)AIDS as a weapon of war
Thu Jun 28 10:59:13 2001

[Goofball]

On the other hand Science created AIDS.

Really? According to this guy, God created AIDS:

"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh's chariotters".
-Jerry Falwell

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I have heard it. But it's a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Hence my surprise.

[AntiochusIII]

Goofball: by chance that Israelite is named Jesus? :beam:

Sorry, can't resist.

[ajaxfetish]

It's not an either/or question. Science and religion do different things. Science explains how the world works. Religion explains how to live a moral life. The problems arise when people try to do one or the other with the wrong one. That's when we get people refusing blood transfusions, or performing experiments like Tuskegee.

Many people are both religious and firm believers in the scientific approach, myself included. Like so many things in life, I think proper balance and recognizing the capabilities and limitations of each leads to the most happy and productive life. Religion would never have provided me the computer I'm typing this on, but Science has never inspired me to buy dinner for a homeless man I pass on the street.

Ajax

[Husar]

Wasn't Einstein religious?:juggle2:

[Sigurd]

Wasn't Einstein religious?:juggle2:
No... But Isaac Newton was, and so was Occam.

[edit]: Einstein has always been put in the atheist camp.. but when you do search for his statements on the matter, they are ambigious. Take this as an example:


I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.

[Zaknafien]

Been thinking about this this morning. People are told that morals come from God. But the facts say otherwise. Moral concepts such as the Golden Rule were around centuries before Jesus. They are the collective principles of humanity. Studies show that atheists are at least as moral as theists, and certainly there is a connection between fundamentalism, in Islam and Christianity, and antisocial behavior. I prefer to call myself a Humanist rather than an atheist because Humanism is the source of our morality and provides a positive outlook on life.

It is a well known fact that very few people actually ever read the religious texts and it is likely that very few of those who read them understand them. So there is chasm between the way a religion is lived and the way it was fundamentally conceived and hence the numerous 'fundamentalist' movements. The argument that I am making is that 'faith' that is driving most religious people is of a vague though absolute kind. Debunking the extraordinary stories of the books, and even providing convincing arguments against God is unlikely to change the views of the majority of religious people.

Science thrives on the parsimonious model. One shouldn't create something if it isn't needed to explain the phenomenon at hand. Hence if all 'natural' phenomena can be conceivably explained by variables at hand then why devise new ones.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No... But Isaac Newton was, and so was Occam.

[edit]: Einstein has always been put in the atheist camp.. but when you do search for his statements on the matter, they are ambigious. Take this as an example:

He is evasive but my take is that like I he believes there is a higher power out there but hes not sure what nor does he much care. He seems to acknowledge that there is more out there than man can ever understand which is more than most here do. That there is a god of some kind out there. In fact didnt he have a problem with atheism?

[Kralizec]

Plus all those miracle drugs like cocaine, heroin, morphine and LSD to name a few.

I'd be grateful to science for morphine if I ever needed to be operated. But you can think differently if you wish. Thank science for chemical relief :clown:

Seriously though, I bet most of those substances were discovered (in raw form) by accident and not by what we would term "science".

I'm an agnostic. I dare not guess wether there's a godly being or not, I suppose that there could be a extra-universal being wich started the big bang. But that's it - I'm pretty convinced that the Abrahamic God is just another god with a small g.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'd be grateful to science for morphine if I ever needed to be operated. But you can think differently if you wish. Thank science for chemical relief

I dont think they still use morphine to sedate you for an operation. But did religion invent the rifle the tank the bow and arrow or the sword? I dont think so. Does anyone here believe there was less violence between men before there was religion?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I dont think they still use morphine to sedate you for an operation.

It's not an anaesthetic, but it is a painkiller-and it's still widely used as such in hospitals.

Post-operative recovery would certainly be a lot less pleasant without it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's not an anaesthetic, but it is a painkiller-and it's still widely used as such in hospitals.

Post-operative recovery would certainly be a lot less pleasant without it.

So you see science just like religion has its good and bad points. Its the same for everything. Miss use science and your in trouble and its the same for religion. Isnt it best to study all philosophies and take what good or best from them?

Again it shouldnt be Science or Religion it should be Science and Religion. Its not an either or thing for most.

[ajaxfetish]

Moral concepts such as the Golden Rule were around centuries before Jesus.
So was God ~;p

I understand what you're saying, though. Religion isn't the only source of morality, and here in the West, secular humanism is sort of the universal ethic, to get around the church/state divide. However, religion is traditionally one of the main sources of morality, and certainly has had a huge influence on secular morality as well. Either way, science itself does not have an internal ethic to govern it, so requires help from outside. Whether that comes from religion or secular humanism doesn't make a lot of difference, as the moral systems of the major religions and of secular humanism are very, very similar.

Ajax

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Moral concepts such as the Golden Rule were around centuries before Jesus.

Like he said so were religions. The whole point is that it gives you another reason to be moral or follow the laws. The founding fathers felt that religion and democracy are inseparable.

[Zaknafien]

Like he said so were religions. The whole point is that it gives you another reason to be moral or follow the laws. The founding fathers felt that religion and democracy are inseparable.

LOL What??! Seriously? How could you think that? Besides, even if it were true, the founding fathers were bigots and war criminals too.

[AntiochusIII]

I dont think they still use morphine to sedate you for an operation. But did religion invent the rifle the tank the bow and arrow or the sword? I dont think so. Does anyone here believe there was less violence between men before there was religion?Wait a minute there.

So you're saying that religion don't kill people; but science does...? :dizzy2:

[Watchman]

The founding fathers felt that religion and democracy are inseparable.So the Founding Fathers felt wrong about that particular issue. :blank2: Shock horror.

[Marshal Murat]

He is saying that we would be fighting over religion, but without the scientific advances (knives, bows, chariots, guns) the wars have gotten more and more violent and destructive.

War criminals and bigots?
Which ones were the war criminals?

[Zaknafien]

uh, the most obvious one is probably Andrew Jackson.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

LOL What??! Seriously? How could you think that?

Because thats how it is or should I say was. Why did Kings claim to be appointed by god? Why did many rulers claim to be gods? Its one thing to know that if you kill someone and your caught the law will prosecute you and you may die. Its another to believe you have an immortal soul and that if you kill someone you will burn in hell for eternity . And theres no hope god will miss your crime. You will be punished .


Besides, even if it were true, the founding fathers were bigots and war criminals too.

And you signed up because you were a patriot lol. You think we started out as a rogue nation led by bigots and war criminals. I must say I never even got that take from our European friends on these boards.

Even if it were true? I know you think their deists :laugh4:

John Adams


"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798


Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence | Portrait of Charles Carroll
" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." [Source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.]

And now a few words from that famous atheist

Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech


On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."


James Madison
“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]


James McHenry – Signer of the Constitution
Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.


George Washington:

Farewell Address: The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion" ...and later: "...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..."


“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”

[ajaxfetish]

uh, the most obvious one is probably Andrew Jackson.
Huh . . . so, when did Andrew Jackson become a founding father?

Ajax

[Zaknafien]

AJ is often considered a founding father in the broader sense of the term.

regarding the Founders being religious, we all know I can post lots of quotes of them supporting anti-religous views as well.

the fact is the US is in no way founded in religion. Paticularly of note would be the 1796 treaty with Tripoli which states as much in explicit terms, ""in no sense founded on the Christian religion" This was not an idle statement, meant to satisfy muslims-- they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.

Yes, most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists. Most of them were stoutly opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular.

Yes, there were Christian men among the Founders. Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is here in blue italics: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence-- it is a historical document, not a constitutional one.

[Zaknafien]

Furthermore, If the Christian Right Extremists wish to return this country to its beginnings, so be it... because it was a climate of Freethought. The Founders were students of the European Enlightenment. Half a century after the establishment of the United States, clergymen complained that no president up to that date had been a Christian. In a sermon that was reported in newspapers, Episcopal minister Bird Wilson of Albany, New York, protested in October 1831: "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." The attitude of the age was one of enlightened reason, tolerance, and free thought. The Founding Fathers would turn in their graves if the Christian Extremists had their way with this country.

[Zaknafien]

James Madison:


"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
- "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
.

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
-letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774
.

"Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects."
.

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
-1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches

George Washington:


The father of this country was very private about his beliefs, but it is widely considered that he was a Deist like his colleagues. He was a Freemason.

Historian Barry Schwartz writes: "George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian... He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative." [New York Press, 1987, pp. 174-175]

Paul F. Boller states in is anthology on Washington: "There is no mention of Jesus Christ anywhere in his extensive correspondence." [Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 14-15]
.
.
"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
- letter to Edward Newenham, 1792
.

"Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself."
-Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal, Feb. 1800


Benjamin Franklin:


"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
.

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
-in Poor Richard's Almanac
.

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
.

"I looked around for God's judgments, but saw no signs of them."
.

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."

"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" (Priestley's Autobiography)



John Adams:


"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
-letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
.

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
-letter to Thomas Jefferson
.

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes."
- letter to John Taylor
.

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." .


Jefferson:




"It has been fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse, and then I considered it merely the ravings of a maniac."
.
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law."
-letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814
.

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot.... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."
- to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814

[Gawain of Orkeny]

regarding the Founders being religious, we all know I can post lots of quotes of them supporting anti-religous views as well.

Because their fair, Every last one of them was a christian. Find me one thats not. You may find a few listed as Deists like Jefferson or Franklin but just looking at their quotes you can see their not.



the fact is the US is in no way founded in religion

So now their not only war criminals and bigots but liars as well.


Paticularly of note would be the 1796 treaty with Tripoli which states as much in explicit terms, ""in no sense founded on the Christian religion" This was not an idle statement, meant to satisfy muslims

That is exactly what it was. They wanted to assure them we were not on a crusade against Islam . You know like Christian nations do. I can give you hundreds of quotes saying it was. I just gave you quite a few.

Another thing I wish you would give links to these cut and paste jobs because for some reason I dont think these are all you words.


Half a century after the establishment of the United States, clergymen complained that no president up to that date had been a Christian

Wow its getting deeper here. Name a president that wasnt a christian.




The Founding Fathers would turn in their graves if the Christian Extremists had their way with this country.

It seems you have no idea of the founding fathers or the founding of America. They would turn over in their graves seeing how secularism is taking over.

Did you know that Madison and Jefferson held church services on sundays in the halls of congress? It was also held in the Supreme court. You take quotes out of context . Did you know that many a state required its representitives to swear to uphold chrisitianity?

Reading your quotes its obvious neither you nor the person you took these thoughs from knows what a christian is.

Just look at this one


George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian... He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion,.

Going to church does not a christian make.

You quote
John Adams:

Well before I only quoted him on the importance of religion. Now your trying to insinuate either he wasnt a christian or he though chrisianity was bad in which case I cant imagine why he would be a christian


John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]


John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress


"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson

So I would guess by these quotes its safe to assume that Adams was a christian and not opposed to christianity as you suggest.


By the way I skipped all these quotes because we were arguing a different point. But now that youve opened the door lets move on to your next founding father.

James Madison


“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

• I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.
Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773)
• In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
“ An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia” Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress

“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”

• A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven. [Letter by Madison to William Bradford [urging him to make sure of his own salvation] November 9, 1772]

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”


George Washington:


“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”

“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]

"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]

During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words “So help me God!” to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible.

Nelly Custis-Lewis (Washington’s adopted daughter):
Is it necessary that any one should [ask], “Did General Washington avow himself to be a believer in Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic devotion to his country. His mottos were, "Deeds, not Words"; and, "For God and my Country."

“ O Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon.”
“ I have sinned against heaven and before Thee in thought, word, and deed. I have contemned Thy majesty and holy laws. I have likewise sinned by omitting what I ought to have done and committing what I ought not. I have rebelled against the light, despising Thy mercies and judgment, and broken my vows and promise. I have neglected the better things. My iniquities are multiplied and my sins are very great. I confess them, O Lord, with shame and sorrow, detestation and loathing and desire to be vile in my own eyes as I have rendered myself vile in Thine. I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me.”
[George Washington; from a 24 page authentic handwritten manuscript book dated April 21-23, 1752
William J. Johnson George Washington, the Christian (New York: The Abingdon Press, New York & Cincinnati, 1919), pp. 24-35.]

"Although guided by our excellent Constitution in the discharge of official duties, and actuated, through the whole course of my public life, solely by a wish to promote the best interests of our country; yet, without the beneficial interposition of the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, we could not have reached the distinguished situation which we have attained with such unprecedented rapidity. To HIM, therefore, should we bow with gratitude and reverence, and endeavor to merit a continuance of HIS special favors". [1797 letter to John Adams]


Benjamin Franklin:

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

Need I go on?

Well one more


Patrick Henry, who must have known that one day Americans would doubt the Christian foundation of the nation, wrote, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

That one pretty much sums it up. It is because we are founded on christian principles that we give religious freedom to all. Unlike Islam and theocracies.

[Husar]

I like that last quote Gawain.:2thumbsup:

Ok, honestly I didn't read all of the others, but the last one sounds very nice and I can fully support it's message.

Wasn't it generally so that many people fled from Europe because Christianity in Europe by that time was not christian enough in the sense that someone who had a different opinion was opressed? For the same reason many atheists etc fled, but I don't think there were that many atheists yet.

[Zaknafien]

:daisy:. How can you posssibly believe that when the overwhelming amount of evidence shows the Founders were throughtful, philosophical men who saw the insanity of religion and fought vigourously to keep it OUT of government? Your statement that "Did you know that many a state required its representitives to swear to uphold chrisitianity? " is exactly why part of our founding documents says no oath or alliegance to any religion will ever be requried for public office.

[HoreTore]

I like that last quote Gawain.:2thumbsup:

Ok, honestly I didn't read all of the others, but the last one sounds very nice and I can fully support it's message.

Wasn't it generally so that many people fled from Europe because Christianity in Europe by that time was not christian enough in the sense that someone who had a different opinion was opressed? For the same reason many atheists etc fled, but I don't think there were that many atheists yet.

The pilgrims were indeed what we call religious nutjobs. We kicked them out, hoping that we wouldn't see their bothersome arses ever again.

But the founding of usa is quite a bit after that, and some intelligent people had found their way over by then.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

How can you posssibly believe that when the overwhelming amount of evidence shows the Founders were throughtful, philosophical men who saw the insanity of religion and fought vigourously to keep it OUT of government?

Out of government? Why does every session of congress start with a prayer? Why did the government issue bibles to the troops?

Not only that if we are to believe you and the revisionists they hated religion thought it to be evil ? So why would they promote its freedom of practice? Were they insane as well?

Tell me what other religions were being practiced at the time in America? When they say they dont want religion in government that means they dont want a state church like England has. In fact many states had an official religion and didnt want the federal government to have the power to say otherwise.


Your whole position is ludicrous and how these revisionists get away with it is beyond me. All but 3 of the founding fathers were practicing christians. They all support the bible and the testament of Jesus Christ. Find me one that does not. Their idea of different religion were different christian ones. Those were the ones oppressing each other in europe.Their problem was not with christianity but the war between the sects and this is what they were tryng to address. That no christian sect would ever be the official religion of the US. They wanted freedom of religion not freedom from it. Its pretty obvious . If they thought as you they should have banned it no?

[Zaknafien]

Groan. Of course they didnt want to ban it, thats what liberty is all about. So any body can worship anything they want. The reason there are prayers in congress and bibles to the troops is because of a handful of die-hard radicals who would not compromise on any other way.

The key Founders — Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and some others — believed that religion was primarily good because it fostered morality. And in this sentiment, all five, including Jefferson and Madison, were agreed. The orthodox Calvinistic Christians believed that the primary purpose of religion was to save souls. The key Founders elevated works over faith as more important towards salvation. And whereas orthodox Christians believed that only Christianity was true religion, the key Founders, including Washington, believed most if not all of the world religions of which they were aware were “sound” religions which provided the necessary moral supports which republics need and could save men’s souls. These religions included, at the very least, Christianity, Deism, Unitarianism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Native American Spirituality, and Pagan Ancient Greco-Roman worship.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The key Founders — Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and some others — believed that religion was primarily good because it fostered morality.

Isnt this the claim I made that you denied that started this whole argument? Groan:laugh4:


The key Founders elevated works over faith as more important towards salvation. And whereas orthodox Christians believed that only Christianity was true religion, the key Founders, including Washington, believed most if not all of the world religions of which they were aware were “sound” religions which provided the necessary moral supports which republics need and could save men’s souls. These religions included, at the very least, Christianity, Deism, Unitarianism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Native American Spirituality, and Pagan Ancient Greco-Roman worship.
Again where did you cut and paste this from. It truly is a misrepresentation but at least it close to the truth. Show me some quotes by them backing this up. Also take back your claim then that religion of itself is bad and that they were opposed to religion. You just showed that they believed religion has to be there in order for democracy to work just as i had stated.

[Zaknafien]

I never said they thought religion was bad. merely that it should be kept out of government, which is true. religion has always been a useful tool to control the teeming masses. its just another reason for people to accept their lot in life and not cause trouble.


“…the design of Christianity was not to make men good Riddle Solvers or good mystery mongers, but good men, good magestrates and good Subjects….”

– John Adams, Dairy, Feb. 18, 1756

[Gawain of Orkeny]

never said they thought religion was bad. merely that it should be kept out of government

Do I have to go back and quote you from numerous threads? Youve already managed to shoot yourself in the foot here by proving yourself wrong on your first claim that they didnt think religion was needed for democracy to work. Now that you seem to have seen the error of your ways on that(although you wont admit you were wrong) Would you like me to continue your education on the founding fathers and the constitution ? :laugh4:



Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Like he said so were religions. The whole point is that it gives you another reason to be moral or follow the laws.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The founding fathers felt that religion and democracy are inseparable.


Zaknafien
[QUOTE]LOL What??! Seriously? How could you think that? Besides, even if it were true, the founding fathers were bigots and war criminals too


Zaknafien

Quote:
“…the design of Christianity was not to make men good Riddle Solvers or good mystery mongers, but good men, good magestrates and good Subjects….”

– John Adams, Dairy, Feb. 18, 1756

Youve answered your own question

It seems you have also claimed that they were enlightened bigots :)

[Zaknafien]

You are taking my words out of context and misquoting, a key tactic of the very right-wing christian-fascist idealogues the Founders were opposed to. I never implied that they wanted religion to be a part of government. How they felt about religion personally does not change the fact that it works well to subjugate the masses and is a good part of rulership.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You are taking my words out of context and misquoting,

First off most of them are not your words but quotes that you posted out of context.


I never implied that they wanted religion to be a part of government

Nor did I nor did I accuse you of it.


How they felt about religion personally does not change the fact that it works well to subjugate the masses and is a good part of rulership.

You do realise that you denied this . Go back and check my last post again. You have given me nothing to support your position and proven mine is correct. Good going. You indeed are a master debater.:laugh4:

[Zaknafien]

uh, what part of me thinking it incredulous that you think religion and democracy are inseperable proves your point?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

uh, what part of me thinking it incredulous that you think religion and democracy are inseperable proves your point?

Its not what I think. You claimed the founding fathers didnt say that. Then you post quotes showing they did. :inquisitive:

Not one of the founding fathers were deists. Not only that they looked at deists as infidels. The problem here is that you and these revisionist historians you listen to use a modern mind set looking at the past. Put yourselves in their shoes at the time.

[Zaknafien]

what? show a quote that says that... youve seriously made me laugh out loud three times..how can you possible believe such hardcore nonsense and call me revisionist? The Founders were Masons for chrissakes. We do not believe in Christianity or religion.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The Founders were Masons for chrissakes. We do not believe in Christianity or religion.

You just quoted them saying the opposite. Name one that wasnt and Ill refute it, Deism back then the way we use the definition today was seen as infidelity and was seriously frowned upon.



Definitions of Deism

DE'ISM, n. [Fr. deisme; Sp. deismo; It. id; from L. deus, God.]
The doctrine or creed of a deist; the belief or system of religious opinions of those who acknowledge the existence of one God, but deny revelation:
or deism is the belief in natural religion only, or those truths, in doctrine and practice, which man is to discover by the light of reason, independent and exclusive of any revelation from God.


one who believes in the existence of a God, but denies revealed religion:
one who professes no form of religion, but follows the light of nature and reason, as his only guides in doctrine and practice;
a freethinker.


One who does not believe in the existence of a God who will reward or punish in this world or that which is to come. Hale v. Everett, 53 N.H. 54, 16 Am.Rep. 82. One who professes no religion that can bind his conscience to speak the truth. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 368. One who does not recognize the inspiration or obligation of the Holy Scriptures, or generally recognized features of the Christian religion. Gibson v. Ins. Co., 37 N.Y. 580.

The main thrust being that their is a god but that he has nothing to do with the affairs of men. Now find me a founding father thats a deist never mind all of them lol. I dont recall how many were ordained ministers but it was quite a few.

Heres something for you to chew on.


n 1844, a case came before the U.S. Supreme Court [Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 43 U.S. 126 (1844)] in which a Frenchman, suspected of being a "deist" or "infidel," wanted to build a school quite different from most -- one in which the teachers would not be clergymen. His will left millions of dollars to the City of Philadelphia to build a school in which "no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever" should be allowed in. He stipulated that "only the purest principles of morality" should be taught, by which he obviously meant Secular Humanism/No Bible.


This is one of the arguments raised before the Supreme Court by Daniel Webster:

[T]he plan of education proposed is anti-Christian and therefore repugnant to the law.

His reasoning before the US Supreme Court was based on Biblical authority:

Both in the Old and New Testaments its importance [viz., the religious instruction of youth] is recognized. In the Old it is said, "Thou shalt diligently teach them to thy children," and in the New, "Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not . . . ." No fault can be found with Girard for wishing a marble college to bear his name for ever, but it is not valuable unless it has a fragrance of Christianity about it.



The City agreed with Webster that this was a Christian nation and that the Bible must be taught in schools. Giving a tortured interpretation of the Frenchman's will, the City argued:

The purest principles of morality are to be taught. Where are they found? Whoever searches for them must go to the source from which a Christian man derives his faith -- the Bible. . . . [T]here is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz., a pure system of morality.



So here we have two parties before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that a clause in a will requiring a Bible-free school cannot be enforced in America because this is a Christian nation. If the ACLU's version of history were true, the Supreme Court would have laughed these lawyers out onto the street. Nobody after Everson can make arguments like this before the Court. (But then, the case which took prayer out of schools in 1962 did not cite a single judicial precedent. The doctrine of "separation of church and state" required a wholesale revision of American history. The Holy Trinity case, of course, cited this 1844 case to prove that America was a "Christian nation.")

So what exactly did the Girard Court hold? How did it react to these Bible-thumping lawyers before it?

After both sides argued that the anti-Christian provision of the will was repugnant to law, the unanimous opinion of the US Supreme Court was delivered by Justice Joseph Story, whose Commentaries on the Constitution were regarded as the greatest statement of U.S. Constitutional Law. The Court ruled that Christianity could NOT be excluded from the school.

Christianity . . . is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public. . . . It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider . . . the establishment of a school or college for the propagation of . . . Deism or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country.

Note that "deism" is equated with "infidelity." The Supreme Court said they were not to be tolerated in a Christian nation. Deism is not approved the way modern writers say the Founders did.

John Adams denounced "infidelity":

The idea of infidelity cannot be treated with too much resentment or too much horror. The man who can think of it with patience is a traitor in his heart and ought to be execrated as one who adds the deepest hypocrisy to the blackest treason. [20]


My how you and the revisionist have managed to turn all this on its head and now it cannot be taught in school The founding fathers would be turning in their graves for sure. . Dont just take what you read for granted. You seem to have gone way to far to the otherside. If I can ever believe you were even a conservative. If I were you Id take a little stock in my opinions. Such a swing in ideas isnt healthy.

[Watchman]

I thought it was common knowledge that few things are as devout (the mean would say "zealous") as a recent convert.

[Zaknafien]

you know on a tangent, I saw an excellent program last night on the science channel about the newest, oldest ancestor to humans, a 7 million year old skull that was discovered in west africa, which is about 4 million years older than the famous "Lucy" hominid. After study they were able to recreate what the ancestor looked like, it was fascinating stuff.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I saw a better one on the discovery channel last night. Kept me up until 2am :laugh4: It covered the entire evolution of early man up to homo sapiens. Fascinating stuff.

It showed how religion came about

[Zaknafien]

ah, here's the old bloke and his lovely missus now.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/Laetoliafar.jpg.jpg

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What on earth?

Actually, the theory is that when vaccinating for, irrc, smallpox they used Green Monkey blood to culture the virus, the Green Monkeys had HIV which they do naturally and those given the vaccine caught it.

It's a perfectly valid theory, the other one is basically that the scientists were sodomising their monkey specimins.

[Zaknafien]

I cant remember who said the old picnic table example, but I thought about it for a bit. Firstly, picnic tables are continuously evolving over the centuries from the different men who made them. They also are not riddled with useless parts from older, less successful picnic tables. There's nothing in that silly new disguise for an old, discarded non-theory.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Ever hear of evolution?

[Zaknafien]

right, but the bible doesnt say God created microbes. It says he made "man". in his own image even. Ridiculous! Rather, its the other way around.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

right, but the bible doesnt say God created microbes.

Maybe you better read it again :dizzy2:


It says he made "man". in his own image even

And yet you expect him to be perfect :laugh4:

[Zaknafien]

I find that the sheer randomness of the evolution of life on earth makes the odds of a creator to be unencouraging. Look at this little fellow:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2d/Pikaia3ZICA.png

This is Pakaia Gracilens, a fossil that lived about 570 million years ago in Canada. Millions of life forms were destroyed in a period known as the Burgess decimation, one of many periods of destruction in the ebb and flow of bursts of life and then wiping them out.

When you ask the question, why do humans exist, the answer is because Pakaia Gracilens survived the decimation. If we wound back time to the Burgess decimation and if Pakaia doesnt survive in the replay, all of us, from shark to monkey to human, doesnt exist. And no one would give good odds to Pakaia surviving.

[ShadeHonestus]

you know on a tangent, I saw an excellent program last night on the science channel about the newest, oldest ancestor to humans, a 7 million year old skull that was discovered in west africa, which is about 4 million years older than the famous "Lucy" hominid. After study they were able to recreate what the ancestor looked like, it was fascinating stuff.

Do you recall the scientific name? I missed this tv thingy, but keep up with the latest discoveries and this is falling somewhat deaf on me. The primate record as our ancestors goes back 60 million years give or take. There was for a short time a fossil in the vicinity of time you noted which was later classified out of direct lineage, but rather part of a divergence.

[Zaknafien]

here's a link I looked him up on wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toumai


Sahelanthropus tchadensis is a fossil ape originally classified as the oldest possible member of the human family tree, but more recently as a Miocene ape related to humans and other living African apes, that is thought to have lived approximately 7 million years ago. The fossils found indicate a relatively small cranium, five pieces of jaw, and some teeth, making up a head that has a mixture of derived and primitive features

Hm, seems the show may have been a little dated (2004 I think).

[ShadeHonestus]

here's a link I looked him up on wiki:

Hm, seems the show may have been a little dated (2004 I think).

Ah okay, thanks, thought I was out of the loop on something. :2thumbsup:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

When you ask the question, why do humans exist, the answer is because Pakaia Gracilens survived the decimation. If we wound back time to the Burgess decimation and if Pakaia doesnt survive in the replay, all of us, from shark to monkey to human, doesnt exist. And no one would give good odds to Pakaia surviving.

So this is your Adam and Eve? :laugh4: It sure sounds like a miracle at any rate.:beam:

[ajaxfetish]

right, but the bible doesnt say God created microbes. It says he made "man". in his own image even. Ridiculous! Rather, its the other way around.
It says he created man. It doesn't get too specific on the 'how' of it, though.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well it does but the whole dust thing can be taken as an allegory for microbes.

[Watchman]

That takes some generous reading though. Some might even say tendentious.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

right, but the bible doesnt say God created microbes.

It says he created man. It doesn't get too specific on the 'how' of it, though.



Well it does but the whole dust thing can be taken as an allegory for microbes.
Today 08:41


That takes some generous reading though. Some might even say tendentious.
Today 09:32

It says he created all things. Thats either very specific or very general depending on how you look at it but it certainly covers microbes.

[Zaknafien]

actually it says:


# First day: God creates light. (The source of light is not mentioned; it is described by some as a "primordial light".) The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named.

# Second day: God creates a firmament and divides the waters above it from the waters below. The firmament is named "heaven".

# Third day: God gathers the waters together, and dry land appears. "Earth" and "sea" are named. Then God brings forth grass, herbs and fruit-bearing trees on the Earth.

# Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament of Heaven, to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (note: they are not named), as well as the stars.

# Fifth day: God creates birds and sea creatures, including "great sea serpents" or "great whales". They are commanded to be fruitful and multiply.

# Sixth day: God creates wild beasts, livestock and reptiles upon the Earth. He then creates Man and Woman in His "image" and "likeness". They are told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." Humans and animals are given plants to eat. The totality of creation is described by God as "very good".

this story is wrong on nearly every part of the real creation narrative.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

this story is wrong on nearly every part of the real creation narrative.

Prove it :laugh4:

Also that is not Genesis but a very poor summary of it.

[Zaknafien]

well firstly the idea that plants were created before the sun is utterly ridiculous.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Why? Hes god and can do as he pleases. He makes the rules.

[Zaknafien]

Uh, ok, granted, but we KNOW it doesnt work that way.

Let's begin at the beginning, shall we? According to creationism, God created Light before he created the sun, stars and moon all about 6000 years ago.


1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
[ So, there's the light ]
4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
[ And then the stars... ]
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
[ And finally the Sun and Moon! ]
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.


Any qualified astronomer will tell you that many stars are billions of light-years away. That is, at the speed of light, the light has taken billions of years to reach us. These distances and ages are almost incomprehensible to the human mind.

In order for God to create light in situ, from each star, he would be required to account for the emissions of every single particle in the star. Not only visible light, but all the other radiation and particles a star emits - infra-red, ultra-violet, X-ray, gamma ray and the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum (the spectrum of each star is dependant on its chemical composition, which is different for every star) as well as neutrinos and the solar wind. Also, he would have had to lengthen the wavelengths of each photon to account for the red-shift that is observed in star-light, caused by the expansion of the universe.

Okay, you may say, no problem for an omnipotent God, is it?

Maybe not, but let's explore this a little further to reveal the astonishing absurdity of it all. In order to correctly place all the light in the universe, God had to know the exact position of every particle in the universe, otherwise the light would not match up with the particles which emit that light. Remember, God created the light before he created the Stars that the light came from.
e.g. for just one single atom of hydrogen, God created a continuous stream of light that persisted until he got round to putting the atom in place. Also, to keep up the illusion of a real star, he would have had to move these false light-sources around in the manner that the actual atoms would move, had they been there. He would have to simulate the motions of all the particles in each star, including the absorption and re-emission of all the light (and neutrinoes, etc.) in the star. If he did not do this, then the stars would not look right. The light emitted from a star depends on the composition, size and age of the star, and all the forces that keep the star burning.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You just dont get it. God can make things work any way he likes and when ever he likes. He is all powerful and can do anything. Do you understand that? And do you think Genesis is exclusively a biblical tale? Every Culture had its ceation myths and most are pretty much the same. The only real question is did god implant this in our brains or did man come up with it himself. You cannot prove it either way. I for one never took Genesis literally. Nor was I ever taught it that it was in religious instruction. We were pretty much told that god created heaven and earth and all things in the universe. You cant judge god through the eyes of man and our rules.

[Husar]

If science makes that much more sense, than how did the "Big Bang" happen?
Was it an insane amount of energy out of nowhere? Or was it compressed energy floating in nowhere that suddenly decided to make poof? And who compressed it anyway? And what is nowhere, where this energy was apparently floating around in?:dizzy2:
I actually don't find that a lot more convincing than any other explanation, but I haven't really investigated the topic.

[Zaknafien]

most physicists now accept that two branes colliding caused the 'big bang' in our universe.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Most priests believe there is a god :laugh4:

[Zaknafien]

yeah, well most priests also believe a dude called Noah fit every animal and creature on earth into a wooden boat. lol

[Gawain of Orkeny]

yeah, well most priests also believe a dude called Noah fit every animal and creature on earth into a wooden boat. lol

I dont think so LOL. Again I was never taught that as literal and I grew up as a kid in the 50s. Most catholics I know look at the bible as a nice collection of fairy tales based on actual happenings. As usual its history written by the winner(the Jews). That is if we are speaking of the old testament. Your always using the old testament to argue against Christianity. I bet even the Jews dont take that story literally .

[Zaknafien]

I dont have a problem with most Catholic progressives..its the insanity of "Evangelicals" that bothers me.. they believe the Bible is 100% factual and literal.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I dont have a problem with most Catholic progressives..its the insanity of "Evangelicals" that bothers me.. they believe the Bible is 100% factual and literal.

And just what percentage of chrisianity do you think they represent? You do realise that you and I are not that far apart?

[Watchman]

And, of course, that just their "literal" reading of it is the more or less the sole correct one and everyone elses' is crap.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And, of course, that just their "literal" reading of it is the more or less the sole correct one and everyone elses' is crap.

Yup and all Protestants think the Catholics are the worst heretics of all yet they all came from there. Is it any wonder the FFs wanted freedom of religion? None of these religions can truly clam to be the only truth. He didnt set them up. Forget that they claim christ is god. Can you fiind a better philosophy to follow? And remember if you say the Masons I will insist they use the bible.

[Watchman]

Oh, Catholics and Protestants largely stopped killing each other over purely confessional issues already after 1648. Not that they particularly liked each other, but grapeshot wasn't really anymore regarded as a valid theologial argument.

As for a better philosophy... Enlightenment ? Buddhism ? Taoism and its offshoots ? Let's not be Eurocentric here shall we ?

[Zaknafien]

indeed, Buddhism and Taoism are probably the best "religions" ever invented by man.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

As for a better philosophy... Enlightenment ? Buddhism ? Taoism and its offshoots ? Let's not be Eurocentric here shall we ?

And these are better how? Isnt this another of those subjective topics? As Ive said before. Its best to study them all and take whats best. But tell me what you find wrong in the philosophy of Jesus then please and just what makes any of these superior. Again I think all religions are made by man . Again the only question I have is why is this notion so firmly planted in our brains.Why do I fell a spiritual relation to everything that lives and especially other humans? There is more to humanity than mere flesh and blood.. Its hard wired into most of us.

[Watchman]

Oh, I have no beef with the Nazarethian carpenter and his ideas. Pretty nice all around far as I know, although appreciating the whole "dying for your sins" part requires one to first believe the whole "original sin" thing, an idea which I personally find to be quite silly. Buddha did the whole gig first though, and without claiming (or later being claimed) to be the son of God. Mixed a lot better with other faiths overall, too, for that matter.

[Watchman]

Again I think all religions are made by man . Again the only question I have is why is this notion so firmly planted in our brains.Why do I fell a spiritual relation to everything that lives and especially other humans? There is more to humanity than mere flesh and blood.. Its hard wired into most of us.What separates humans from other animals (as far as is at the moment known for certain anyway) is the presence of sentience and ability to think analytically, as well as creative imagination. Whenever humans were confronted by something they did not understand, they needed to find an explanation for it. Ergo, mythology and religion. They are filters on the world, a way to make the incomprehensible manageable and at least remotely controllable (through prayer, ritual, and other essentially "magical" methods). They also fill the frightening, inconceivable and imperceivable unknowns beyond the two greatest thresholds the human mind is aware of - the Beginning and the End.

There's actually studies specifically about the reason religion, in one guise or another, has so long been so inseparable from human existence. Can't say I've dwelt too deeply into the topic, but I've read enough anthropology to have a decent idea of the basics.

[Conradus]

There's actually studies specifically about the reason religion, in one guise or another, has so long been so inseparable from human existence. Can't say I've dwelt too deeply into the topic, but I've read enough anthropology to have a decent idea of the basics.

Care to share this info or provide a link to something on this issue if you have it, Watchman? I must say I'm interested in it.

[Zaknafien]

The only problem with Christianity is the whole assumption of guilt you have to make, wallowing in your own self pity and subservience in order to accept "forgiveness" for your "sins". Plus the religion is painted as "THE" religion, and all others are wrong and condemn you to hell. A little arrogant, especially since they made up Hell in the first place. I look upon Buddhistas and Taoists as more philosophers than "religious".

[Watchman]

Care to share this info or provide a link to something on this issue if you have it, Watchman? I must say I'm interested in it.Like much of my erudition that too is largely synthesized from numerous sources over a long period, so not really. I read the reviews of few such published studies in the newspaper not long ago, but three guesses if I can even remember the authors' names anymore...

But really, going to any good library database and searching for the relevant topics (certain sub-fields of anthropology, and whatever studies of religion now are called in your neck of the woods) ought to put you on the right track.


A little arrogant, especially since they made up Hell in the first place.Hell is actually a pretty late addition to Christianity AFAIK. Middle Ages or thereabouts. Some variations of Taoism and probably Buddhism too incidentally also have their own versions of the theme, and ones no less graphically unpleasant than what Christians came up with.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

There's actually studies specifically about the reason religion, in one guise or another, has so long been so inseparable from human existence. Can't say I've dwelt too deeply into the topic, but I've read enough anthropology to have a decent idea of the basics.

Like I was saying I saw a show on the discovery channel the other day about the evolution of man . They said when man stopped migrating and settled down he could no longer leave his dead and started to bury them. This was long before Homo Saipein . Then they started to find graves with artifacts in them . They said this is a sign they believe in an after life or some spiritual connection to the dead and thats where religion started. But again this is long before us. So it is possible that it is hardwired into our brains. The thing is does it really make a difference? Its funny not only do secularists argue now that their morals are as good as religious people, now they argue that their better.

[Zaknafien]

Why do you equate morals with religion? Most morals come from the social contract of mankind, that we must agree to treat each other by some orders or laws if we wish to live together peacefully. Not murdering your own kind is a natural instinct, having nothing to do with religion.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Why do you equate morals with religion?

Is that a trick or loaded question? Do I really have to answer? Now your going to tell me that secularist dont claim that religion doesnt give you morals. Didnt you just sort of say so yourself? Religions mostly seek to set down a set of morals. Christianity certainly does. The whole idea behind religion is if you dont follow these morals you will be punished for enternity. At least in most popular religions. Now I think that these came from these "priests" studying nature and figuring out what was good and worked for people . Then by showing they did work proclaimed them ordained by god. Like not eating pork. But then you oppose this view.

[Watchman]

Zak has a point there. I would regard it as obvious that the basic human ethics (eg. "thou shalt not eat thine neighbour") ultimately stem from the same sources that in general keep pack animals off each others' throats. Well, pack-mates' throats anyway; outsiders often get harsher treatment. Religion is really just the first thing this was articulated with, since what amounts to religion was for a very very long time the lens the whole world was seen through.

[Zaknafien]

Its true religions do provide morality, but they certainly existed prior to religious institutions as well. Also, most if not all religions have always been about political power by a small group (priests) over the masses. From the times of the village holy man to modern times with the local mullah or parish priest, its political power in the community that defines religion. You can say its personal all you want but the fact is that millions of people are influenced every day by what their religious leaders tell them to think. I propose that morality has nothing to do with religion. In fact, I find it appaling that religion implies the only reason people should follow a moral code is to avoid punishment. I don't need a reward or fear of punishment to make me believe I should treat all people with kindness and respect regardless of their faith, race, or creed.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Zak has a point there. I would regard it as obvious that the basic human ethics (eg. "thou shalt not eat thine neighbour") ultimately stem from the same sources that in general keep pack animals off each others' throats.

Didnt I pretty much agree? But that doesnt mean god didnt put it there. I have no doubt thats how religion came about. In fact I just said so. You cant agrue over something intangible. You cant convince me theres no Flying Spaghetti Monster:laugh4:

[Watchman]

That's why I'm an agnostic. No point getting all wound up over a being whose existence or lack thereof cannot be proven period.
But I do take issue with people trying to claim either...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That's why I'm an agnostic

Well Im not sure if im in the same boat but I consider myself a Diest but by the old fashioned definition. I dont know who or what god is nor do I much care. Im not even sure if he exists. But I lean that way. Im covering all my bases :laugh4: