Religion or Science

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

Wasn't Einstein religious?:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

The founding fathers felt that religion and democracy are inseparable.

---

So the Founding Fathers felt wrong about that particular issue. :blank2: Shock horror.

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?

uh, the most obvious one is probably Andrew Jackson.

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

"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

---

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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."

---

Quote:

---

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]

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

uh, the most obvious one is probably Andrew Jackson.

---

Huh . . . so, when did Andrew Jackson become a founding father?

Ajax

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.

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.

James Madison:

Quote:

---

"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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

"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:

Quote:

---

"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:

Quote:

---

"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

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

"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

Quote:

---

“ 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:

Quote:

---

“ 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:

Quote:

---

“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

Quote:

---

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.

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.

: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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

---

Quote:

---

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:


[QUOTE]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:

---

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 :)

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Nor did I nor did I accuse you of it.

Quote:

---

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:

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

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

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

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.

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

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...liafar.jpg.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

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.

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.

Ever hear of evolution?

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.

Quote:

---

right, but the bible doesnt say God created microbes.

---

Maybe you better read it again :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

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

---

And yet you expect him to be perfect :laugh4:

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/wikiped...ikaia3ZICA.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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Ajax

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

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

Quote:

---

right, but the bible doesnt say God created microbes.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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.

actually it says:

Quote:

---

# 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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

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

Most priests believe there is a god :laugh4:

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

Quote:

---

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 .

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.

Quote:

---

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?

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

Quote:

---

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.

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 ?

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

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.