forums
new posts
donate
UER Store
events
location db
db map
search
members
faq
terms of service
privacy policy
register
login




1 2  
UER Forum > Private Boards Index > Religious Discussion > Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect (Viewed 7311 times)
splumer 


Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 201 likes




 |  | 
Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect
< on 9/10/2013 12:01 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
There are links in the text that I did not reproduce you might want to follow.

http://www.npr.org...mpaign=nprfacebook

A few years ago, over dinner, a friend and fellow academic "came out" to me as a theist.

The conversation later struck me as quite funny. Only in my exotic academic enclave, I thought to myself, would two Americans have a conversation in which the Christian theist "came out" to the atheist Jew. In most American communities, my beliefs would be the anomalies, to be revealed selectively and with caution.

A few weeks ago, writer Virginia Heffernan made a similar confession in a post at Yahoo! News:



"At heart, I am a creationist. There, I said it. At least you, dear readers, won't now storm out of a restaurant like the last person I admitted that to. In New York City saying you're a creationist is like confessing you think Ahmadinejad has a couple of good points. Maybe I'm the only creationist I know."

The response was characterized in The New York Times as "swift and harsh." One blogger described Heffernan's post as a "spectacularly bad piece." Among the 600-plus comments on Yahoo! News were charges of being "intellectually vapid" and offering "the intellectual equivalent of a ditry [sic] bomb."

Of course, the vitriol goes both ways; it isn't just believers who sometimes face a hostile reception when they voice their beliefs. Atheists are among the most distrusted groups in America and face discrimination in various forms, some of it "overt and widespread."

Issues about science and religion have become so politicized and polarizing that it's hard to find public forums in which people with different commitments can meaningfully engage in discussion and debate. You know, respectful conversations, ones in which we interpret each other charitably and don't simply assume that those who disagree with us are foolish, immoral or just plain stupid.

I'm not arguing for a middle ground in which we all compromise. The best position isn't necessarily the one in the middle, or the one that wins by majority vote. But I do think we need a "charitable ground," if you will — some shared territory in which we recognize that other people's religious and scientific commitments can be as deeply felt and deeply reasoned as our own, and that there's value in understanding why others believe what they do.

If there is some charitable ground out there, it's a small territory with contested borders.

A few weeks ago I wrote a post here at 13.7 that asked, "Is there existential meaning beyond religion?" It linked to an article at the Boston Review titled "Can science deliver the benefits of religion?"

In the article, I summarized some ideas from psychology and cognitive science concerning the psychological bases for religious beliefs and whether scientific beliefs can provide some of the same psychological benefits typically ascribed to religion. Although it wasn't my intention to do so, I knew that I might upset some religious believers. What I didn't anticipate was uncharitable reactions from both religious believers and atheists.

On one side, some religious believers seem to have taken my article as an attempt at "a rational argument discounting a certain strain of creationism." But I don't see how my discussion of the psychological causes and consequences of religious and scientific beliefs could be taken as an argument for one belief or the other — taking it to be one suggests an antecedent assumption of hostility; that my intent was to present certain views as foolish or false.

On the other side, a comment at Jerry Coyne's blog, Why Evolution Is True, suggested that — in light of the article — I should be added to Coyne's list of "Most Annoying Accommodationists (Female Category)." The main target of Coyne's original post was Tanya Luhrmann, an anthropologist who has studied and written about supernatural beliefs. Highlighting a major offense, Coyne wrote of Luhrmann:



"What's most annoying is that she keeps her own beliefs under wraps, trying to cater to believers of all stripes while not alienating any of them."

Is it so terrible to try to be accessible to a broad audience with diverse beliefs, and to prefer not to alienate people? Is it terribly naïve of me to think that we can have real discussion about difficult issues without being dismissive of alternative positions or those who hold them?

Here are some things that I'm not saying:

All perspectives are equally valid. They certainly are not. We may not have everything figured out yet, but some perspectives are better supported by evidence and arguments than others.

It's perfectly OK for people to believe whatever they want. Most beliefs are fine. Some lead people to do unfortunate things, whether it's support female genital mutilation or dismiss climate change. Part of me thinks there's nothing wrong with any beliefs, only with particular actions. The problem is that actions and beliefs often go hand in hand.

You shouldn't try to change someone's mind when it comes to scientific or religious beliefs. When you're trying to enjoy a nice family meal with your conservative Christian in-laws and your card-carrying Skeptics Society cousins, maybe you shouldn't. It's up to you. But as far as I'm concerned, there are some contexts in which it is appropriate to aim for persuasion, provided you do so respectfully and not dogmatically.

We shouldn't engage in serious debate about personal or sensitive issues. Of course we should. But serious, constructive debate is not only consistent with a charitable and respectful attitude toward your conversant, it may require it.

Here's what I am saying:

We should engage in respectful debate and discussion. We should assume, as a default, that others hold their religious and scientific beliefs deeply, genuinely and reflectively. People rarely believe what they do because they are stupid, heartless, immoral, elitist or brainwashed. Let's find some charitable ground.




“We are not going to have the kind of cooperation we need if everyone insists on their own narrow version of reality. … the great divide in the world today … is between people who have the courage to listen and those who are convinced that they already know it all.”

-Madeline Albright
DevilC 


Location: Washington, District of Corruption
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 202 likes


I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their views.

 |  |  | Bow to your new God!
Re: Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect
< Reply # 1 on 9/10/2013 2:41 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Yes.
Absolutely.
Because while we think we may know, we really don't KNOW.

Posted by splumer
Here's what I am saying:

We should engage in respectful debate and discussion. We should assume, as a default, that others hold their religious and scientific beliefs deeply, genuinely and reflectively. People rarely believe what they do because they are stupid, heartless, immoral, elitist or brainwashed. Let's find some charitable ground.







Science flies you to the Moon. Religion flies you into tall buildings.
KublaKhan 


Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Total Likes: 207 likes


With Satan, it's always gimmie, gimmie.

 |  | 
Re: Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect
< Reply # 2 on 9/10/2013 3:37 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by splumer

People rarely believe what they do because they are stupid, heartless, immoral, elitist or brainwashed. Let's find some charitable ground.



Actually...




"The truth is knowable. But probably not, ever, incontrovertible."
--Don DeLillo
PICS
MutantMandias 

Perverse and Often Baffling


Location: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 268 likes


Are you a reporter? Contact me for a UE interview! Also not averse to the the idea of group/anal.

 |  |  | Old Creeper
Re: Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect
< Reply # 3 on 9/10/2013 3:43 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Yeah, actually, a huge amount of people only believe what they do because they are stupid, heartless, immoral, elitist or brainwashed.

But, I am still totally on board with the last part.

Posted by splumer
Let's find some charitable ground.


Because people are rarely stupid, heartless, immoral, elitist or brainwashed of their own volition.



[last edit 9/10/2013 3:44 PM by MutantMandias - edited 1 times]

mutantMandias may cause dizziness, sexual nightmares, and sleep crime. ++++ mutantMandias has to return some videotapes ++++ Do not taunt mutantMandias

mutantMandias is something more than human, more than a computer. mutantMandias is a murderously intelligent, sensually self-programmed, non-being
Samurai 

Vehicular Lord Rick


Location: northeastern New York
Total Likes: 1887 likes


No matter where you go, there you are...

 |  | 
Re: Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect
< Reply # 4 on 9/10/2013 9:54 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by splumer

We should engage in respectful debate and discussion.



never.
i'm right. religious people are nuts.
end of discussion.





tekriter 


Location: in the Hindu Kush
Total Likes: 0 likes


Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

 |  | 
Re: Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect
< Reply # 5 on 9/16/2013 11:42 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Seems to me that conversational intolerance would be more productive and conducive to living together in peace in the long run.

Why accept ridiculous ideas and foolish arguments simply because of special pleading on religious grounds?

No thanks. Imaginary friends and superstitions should be ridiculed like any other nonsense.




It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. Robert A. Heinlen
blitz 


Location: Cumberland, ME
Gender: Neither
Total Likes: 330 likes


Good news!

 |  |  | AIM Message
Re: Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect
< Reply # 6 on 10/1/2013 7:54 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
I've mentioned this before in this forum, but for my entire life I considered myself an atheist. It all changed when I read the Qua'ran and I discovered that God and Science are in fact, the same (to me).

Why can't God have created science? Why can't God be the creator of the big bang and thus science and all life in the universe? Just my 2 cents.




I may not believe in marriage, but I do believe in best men.
MutantMandias 

Perverse and Often Baffling


Location: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 268 likes


Are you a reporter? Contact me for a UE interview! Also not averse to the the idea of group/anal.

 |  |  | Old Creeper
Re: Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect
< Reply # 7 on 10/2/2013 5:18 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by blitz

Why can't God have created science? Why can't God be the creator of the big bang and thus science and all life in the universe? Just my 2 cents.


That is a perfectly reasonable set of beliefs.

Approved.



[last edit 10/2/2013 5:18 AM by MutantMandias - edited 1 times]

mutantMandias may cause dizziness, sexual nightmares, and sleep crime. ++++ mutantMandias has to return some videotapes ++++ Do not taunt mutantMandias

mutantMandias is something more than human, more than a computer. mutantMandias is a murderously intelligent, sensually self-programmed, non-being
splumer 


Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 201 likes




 |  | 
Re: Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect
< Reply # 8 on 10/2/2013 2:57 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by blitz
I've mentioned this before in this forum, but for my entire life I considered myself an atheist. It all changed when I read the Qua'ran and I discovered that God and Science are in fact, the same (to me).


I'm impressed you were actually able to get through it!



Why can't God have created science? Why can't God be the creator of the big bang and thus science and all life in the universe? Just my 2 cents.


That's certainly possible, but is it probable? There is no evidence that that is the case.

A lot of people make the argument that god is some sort of abstraction, but it doesn't really make sense to get up early on Sunday to go to church and sing hymns to something that's a concept, rather than a conscious entity.




“We are not going to have the kind of cooperation we need if everyone insists on their own narrow version of reality. … the great divide in the world today … is between people who have the courage to listen and those who are convinced that they already know it all.”

-Madeline Albright
MutantMandias 

Perverse and Often Baffling


Location: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 268 likes


Are you a reporter? Contact me for a UE interview! Also not averse to the the idea of group/anal.

 |  |  | Old Creeper
Re: Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect
< Reply # 9 on 10/2/2013 3:43 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by splumer

That's certainly possible, but is it probable? There is no evidence that that is the case.

A lot of people make the argument that god is some sort of abstraction, but it doesn't really make sense to get up early on Sunday to go to church and sing hymns to something that's a concept, rather than a conscious entity.


It doesn't matter if it's probable of not. It is the only rational view of God. If you choose to believe in God, and live in the real world based on observation and experience, there is no conflict with this simple belief.




mutantMandias may cause dizziness, sexual nightmares, and sleep crime. ++++ mutantMandias has to return some videotapes ++++ Do not taunt mutantMandias

mutantMandias is something more than human, more than a computer. mutantMandias is a murderously intelligent, sensually self-programmed, non-being
blitz 


Location: Cumberland, ME
Gender: Neither
Total Likes: 330 likes


Good news!

 |  |  | AIM Message
Re: Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect
< Reply # 10 on 10/2/2013 5:59 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by MutantMandias


It doesn't matter if it's probable of not. It is the only rational view of God. If you choose to believe in God, and live in the real world based on observation and experience, there is no conflict with this simple belief.


Couldn't have said it better myself.

Religion and science don't need to be opposites, if you have some time to burn watch this awesome documentary about science in the Qua'ran.

http://www.youtube...atch?v=6RZLLkrvF70




I may not believe in marriage, but I do believe in best men.
tekriter 


Location: in the Hindu Kush
Total Likes: 0 likes


Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

 |  | 
Re: Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect
< Reply # 11 on 10/4/2013 12:25 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by blitz
I've mentioned this before in this forum, but for my entire life I considered myself an atheist. It all changed when I read the Qua'ran and I discovered that God and Science are in fact, the same (to me).

Why can't God have created science? Why can't God be the creator of the big bang and thus science and all life in the universe? Just my 2 cents.


"Why can't..." is sort of a parabolic question. Why can't the flying spaghetti monster have invented science? Or me, if I believed, say, that I was the reincarnated soul of a magical science inventing possum. Or zeuss. These possibilities along with infinite others have an equal chance of having invented science along with your god.

Perhaps you should ask yourself "What is the probability that this god of the koran did any of the things he/she/it is reported to have done?" or "Is there any evidence of the facts presented in this hateful book?"

I added the "hateful" myself since the book seems to be more about killing infidels and punishing various religious offences than explaining any useful truths about the universe.

I see you have time to post on the interwebz and are not out stoning women and warring against unbelief. How were you able to decide which portions of the koran were to be taken literally, which ones were allegorical and which ones to ignore - I'm very curious.

For example:

Qur'an (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

Perhaps "slay" means rub back gently. Or maybe it means AK47 mall rampage. I find it so hard to tell...Let's check the news and see what the evidence suggests.

Perhaps islam-o-zombies blow themselves up in crowds of children, like at Beslan, because they believed in the truth of a book that admonished them that an entire group of humans were not to be "friends or helpers" and that made it just a little easier to stuff more nails in a pressure cooker in Boston.




It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. Robert A. Heinlen
splumer 


Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 201 likes




 |  | 
Re: Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect
< Reply # 12 on 10/4/2013 12:45 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by tekriter

I added the "hateful" myself since the book seems to be more about killing infidels and punishing various religious offences than explaining any useful truths about the universe.



Truth. I've read on several sites about science in the Quran, and in every case, it seems like it's more post-diction rather than prediction. Kind of like the prophecies of Nostradamus. Looking back at them, it's easy to juggle them around to fit things that have already happened or been discovered, but how many events or discoveries were found before they happened or discovered independently? For example, does the Quran have the proof for Fermat's last theorem? No. Does it explain what dark matter is? No. Does it mention DNA? Sort of, but it's in a pulling-out-of-your-ass kind of way. (The letters DNA appear in Sura 18:65, which this site: http://www.miracle...thematical_04.html claims Mendel invented in 1865. It doesn't mention that his paper was first published in 1865, after decades of work.)

So yeah, the fact that you can read something in your holy book and apply some modern discovery to it means absolutely nothing. If you want to say "This philosophy appeals to me, and so I will follow it," fine. But don't claim it's something greater than just a philosophy, any more than Nietzsche, Hegel or Schopenhauer.





“We are not going to have the kind of cooperation we need if everyone insists on their own narrow version of reality. … the great divide in the world today … is between people who have the courage to listen and those who are convinced that they already know it all.”

-Madeline Albright
MutantMandias 

Perverse and Often Baffling


Location: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 268 likes


Are you a reporter? Contact me for a UE interview! Also not averse to the the idea of group/anal.

 |  |  | Old Creeper
Re: Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect
< Reply # 13 on 10/4/2013 2:17 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by tekriter


Qur'an (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."



Settle down tek, the passage seems to allow for a period of decision for the infidel. You have a little time before he will come at you to give you your righteous slaying. But have no fear, the final line restricts them from turning you into a slave after you have been killed.




mutantMandias may cause dizziness, sexual nightmares, and sleep crime. ++++ mutantMandias has to return some videotapes ++++ Do not taunt mutantMandias

mutantMandias is something more than human, more than a computer. mutantMandias is a murderously intelligent, sensually self-programmed, non-being
blitz 


Location: Cumberland, ME
Gender: Neither
Total Likes: 330 likes


Good news!

 |  |  | AIM Message
Re: Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect
< Reply # 14 on 10/4/2013 4:09 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by tekriter


"Why can't..." is sort of a parabolic question. Why can't the flying spaghetti monster have invented science? Or me, if I believed, say, that I was the reincarnated soul of a magical science inventing possum. Or zeuss. These possibilities along with infinite others have an equal chance of having invented science along with your god.

Perhaps you should ask yourself "What is the probability that this god of the koran did any of the things he/she/it is reported to have done?" or "Is there any evidence of the facts presented in this hateful book?"

I added the "hateful" myself since the book seems to be more about killing infidels and punishing various religious offences than explaining any useful truths about the universe.

I see you have time to post on the interwebz and are not out stoning women and warring against unbelief. How were you able to decide which portions of the koran were to be taken literally, which ones were allegorical and which ones to ignore - I'm very curious.

For example:

Qur'an (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

Perhaps "slay" means rub back gently. Or maybe it means AK47 mall rampage. I find it so hard to tell...Let's check the news and see what the evidence suggests.

Perhaps islam-o-zombies blow themselves up in crowds of children, like at Beslan, because they believed in the truth of a book that admonished them that an entire group of humans were not to be "friends or helpers" and that made it just a little easier to stuff more nails in a pressure cooker in Boston.


"I added the "hateful" myself since the book seems to be more about killing infidels and punishing various religious offences than explaining any useful truths about the universe."

That's your opinion, and respectfully, not one I agree with.

"I see you have time to post on the interwebz and are not out stoning women and warring against unbelief. How were you able to decide which portions of the koran were to be taken literally, which ones were allegorical and which ones to ignore - I'm very curious."

It's surprisingly easy, the Qua'ran is a book of guidance. Along with the Qua'ran, the hadith (the actions and sayings of Muhammad [pbuh]) is used to determine your personal orientation to Islamic law. Different sects have a different hadith they use to interpret Islamic law differently, which is why we have Shi'a and Sunni sects (among hundreds of others). So in other words, I choose not to kill non-believers because that contradicts my hadith, which places tolerance and self-love above all.

In regards to my hadith, I personally consider myself Haruriyyah; a sect which is over 1,300 years old that believes strongly in women's rights (they gave women the power to divorce and become Imams since 700 AD), human rights (when they controlled the Caliphate, they ensured all non-combatants were protected from plunder, rape, and genocide), and respect for the land (no poisoning of wells, no overfishing, generally very strict protection of nature).

Islamic sects are exactly like Protestant Christian ones. We follow similar guidelines from the Qua'ran for guidance, and then consult the hadith for the most rational solution to a given dilemma. Catholics will sin and then confess, while Protestants will seek to eliminate sin from their lives at all cost, confession is not an option. In Saudi Arabia, a woman gets raped and Wahhabists (the dominant sect) may stone and kill her for having sexual relations outside a marriage. Haruriyyahs finding themselves in a similar predicament will console the victim, punish the perpetrator, but also seek to rehabilitate the perpetrator.

What I was originally trying to get at though, is that Islam doesn't reject science as a contradiction to God's will (like many Christians believe)... science is God's will, and that's why it spoke to me. I don't need to believe in a "man in the sky" or a "flying spaghetti monster" as you suggested to believe in God, I simply believe that the reaction that created the big bang was God, doesn't have to be some gay mythical figure.

What do you think initiated the big bang? Whatever it is, it created all life in the universe and in my opinion that is God.



[last edit 10/4/2013 4:11 PM by blitz - edited 1 times]

I may not believe in marriage, but I do believe in best men.
MutantMandias 

Perverse and Often Baffling


Location: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 268 likes


Are you a reporter? Contact me for a UE interview! Also not averse to the the idea of group/anal.

 |  |  | Old Creeper
Re: Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect
< Reply # 15 on 10/4/2013 4:16 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by blitz
Islam doesn't reject science as a contradiction to God's will (like many Christians believe)


I would like to point out that Christianity also does not reject science. The Christians who believe that science is a contradiction to God's will are batshit crazy idiots. There are also some batshit crazy Muslims who believe the same thing.






mutantMandias may cause dizziness, sexual nightmares, and sleep crime. ++++ mutantMandias has to return some videotapes ++++ Do not taunt mutantMandias

mutantMandias is something more than human, more than a computer. mutantMandias is a murderously intelligent, sensually self-programmed, non-being
blitz 


Location: Cumberland, ME
Gender: Neither
Total Likes: 330 likes


Good news!

 |  |  | AIM Message
Re: Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect
< Reply # 16 on 10/4/2013 4:54 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
True, but what percentage of the self-identified Christian population still believe in creationism? As of 2012, apparently 46% of Americans do (never mind if they are Christian).

http://www.huffing...ism_n_1571127.html

I've yet to meet a Muslim in my extensive travels of the Middle East that believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old. This is a huge deviation between the Islamic interpretation of Judaic and Christian texts found in the new testament.

In my opinion, intelligent design is a Christian concept that clearly rejects the scientific justification for human evolution, just one example.



[last edit 10/4/2013 4:57 PM by blitz - edited 2 times]

I may not believe in marriage, but I do believe in best men.
MutantMandias 

Perverse and Often Baffling


Location: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 268 likes


Are you a reporter? Contact me for a UE interview! Also not averse to the the idea of group/anal.

 |  |  | Old Creeper
Re: Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect
< Reply # 17 on 10/4/2013 5:23 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by blitz
True, but what percentage of the self-identified Christian population still believe in creationism? As of 2012, apparently 46% of Americans do (never mind if they are Christian).

http://www.huffing...ism_n_1571127.html

I've yet to meet a Muslim in my extensive travels of the Middle East that believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old. This is a huge deviation between the Islamic interpretation of Judaic and Christian texts found in the new testament.

In my opinion, intelligent design is a Christian concept that clearly rejects the scientific justification for human evolution, just one example.


Intelligent Design is essentially a political movement. Thus the source of idiocy. It is the same with Muslim idiocy. Most dangerous religious idiocy is related to "impossible to reconcile" beliefs being popularized in a group for the purpose of leading them down other "impossible to reconcile" paths, with the ultimate goal being power and money for the leaders.




mutantMandias may cause dizziness, sexual nightmares, and sleep crime. ++++ mutantMandias has to return some videotapes ++++ Do not taunt mutantMandias

mutantMandias is something more than human, more than a computer. mutantMandias is a murderously intelligent, sensually self-programmed, non-being
blitz 


Location: Cumberland, ME
Gender: Neither
Total Likes: 330 likes


Good news!

 |  |  | AIM Message
Re: Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect
< Reply # 18 on 10/4/2013 5:58 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by MutantMandias


Intelligent Design is essentially a political movement. Thus the source of idiocy. It is the same with Muslim idiocy. Most dangerous religious idiocy is related to "impossible to reconcile" beliefs being popularized in a group for the purpose of leading them down other "impossible to reconcile" paths, with the ultimate goal being power and money for the leaders.


Key word being "essentially" (a political movement)

I agree for the most part with what everyone is saying here, I am by no means trying to say Islam is superior to Christianity or even superior to being non-religious in any regard. I've just found there is a lot more tolerance for discovery and empirical knowledge (using these words as an alternative to science) in the mainstream Islamic world, it has been that way for a long time as mathematics, the fine arts, and scientific discovery were encouraged (religious extremism in the past few decades has obviously hurt this perception and caused Americans to see Islam as backward and stuck in the "dark ages").

On the other side of the spectrum, Christianity has a historical basis in institutionalized conservatism and scientific stagnation, which continues today. Think about how Christians have for hundreds of years repressed great minds like Leonardo Da Vinci & Galileo, and continue to ignore scientific facts like Global Warming and human evolution. It's because these discoveries contradict the strictly biblical, Christian orientation to God; that He created the Earth 6,000 years ago.

Didn't mean to turn this into a rant, I just felt a strong connection with Islam because its core values very much reflect my own. The importance of discovery, knowledge, tolerance, and self-growth/improvement can never be underestimated. This is obviously a huge generalization, but when I think of Christianity I don't think of any of those values above, values that were important to me before I considered myself a person of faith.




I may not believe in marriage, but I do believe in best men.
Samurai 

Vehicular Lord Rick


Location: northeastern New York
Total Likes: 1887 likes


No matter where you go, there you are...

 |  | 
Re: Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect
< Reply # 19 on 10/4/2013 9:07 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
what I don't understand is a)why one needs to believe in something that is intangible and b)what purpose does it serve?

science can be proven
faith cannot.

therein lies my beef with it all.




UER Forum > Private Boards Index > Religious Discussion > Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect (Viewed 7311 times)
1 2  


Add a poll to this thread



This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private.



All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site: UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service | View Privacy Policy | Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 125 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 736987810 pages have been generated.