U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-31-2018, 04:43 PM
 
Location: Missouri
327 posts, read 127,074 times
Reputation: 53

Advertisements

I don't think that the young people really give it much thought. Not likely they will still be thinking the same 20 years from now. More people, more wars, less resources, and perhaps an earth exploited to the point of extinction. These may just be the good old days.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-31-2018, 05:13 PM
 
34,606 posts, read 8,924,012 times
Reputation: 4801
I get you point, but it changes nothing. People don't consciously do science Or religion separately, they have got used to it. The scientists doesn't consciously think about 'This reuires scientific method', not religion. They do it without thinking. They still do it. They are not so much ompatible but can co- exist if kept separate.

When brought together, one has a corrosive effect upon the other. Whichever way you find evidence or an analogy to try to prove otherwise, dear lady, it will not work under scrutiny, because it isn't otherwise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2018, 05:21 PM
 
10,520 posts, read 4,149,112 times
Reputation: 1193
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
I get you point, but it changes nothing. People don't consciously do science Or religion separately, they have got used to it. The scientists doesn't consciously think about 'This reuires scientific method', not religion. They do it without thinking. They still do it. They are not so much ompatible but can co- exist if kept separate.

When brought together, one has a corrosive effect upon the other. Whichever way you find evidence or an analogy to try to prove otherwise, dear lady, it will not work under scrutiny, because it isn't otherwise.
lmao. science data strengthens a belief. Yes, understanding is corrosive to ignorance. It dissolved my anti-religious rants. anti-religion doesn't muster up to even a small amount of cross checking. One quickly sees the personality types express a belief. sick people have sick beliefs.

Haven't seen that proven wrong yet. Of course, it will stand up easily to scrutiny, that's why you run away from it. It easily puts a check in your loss, again, column.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2018, 06:02 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,070 posts, read 8,573,982 times
Reputation: 6006
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
I get you point, but it changes nothing. People don't consciously do science Or religion separately, they have got used to it. The scientists doesn't consciously think about 'This reuires scientific method', not religion. They do it without thinking. They still do it. They are not so much ompatible but can co- exist if kept separate.

When brought together, one has a corrosive effect upon the other. Whichever way you find evidence or an analogy to try to prove otherwise, dear lady, it will not work under scrutiny, because it isn't otherwise.
The basic incompatibility is the completely opposite epistemologies involved.

Religion: predetermine what the facts are, assert them and accept them without reference to evidence.
Science: examine evidence, see what is in fact true based on that, regardless of whether it happens to be convenient for some religious dogma or any other preconception.

The extent to which religion and science aren't in open conflict is brought about by people compartmentalizing these two epistemological approaches. Religious people tend to be skeptical about a lot of the things irreligious people are -- such as dishonest sales pitches, appeals to vanity, etc. They just are willing to suspend disbelief in the religious realm, and apply a different standard there. This is called special pleading. If you contain special pleading to the things you do at your religious club meetings and the privacy of your home, you might well appear to have managed to either reconcile them or to keep them as so-called "non-overlapping magisteria" at least publicly. But it's just appearances. They're really oil and water. As any thread on this forum pretty clearly highlights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2018, 06:20 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
18,958 posts, read 8,900,001 times
Reputation: 18331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel View Post
Most people don't really think about breathing and blinking at all, they accept and comfortably integrate the two.
Let me guess....are you seriously going to say that is "an overstatement."


That's the whole point. That's what comfortably integrated is.
OMG. Breathing and blinking are things your body does of its own volition. Integrating science and religion is not even close to being the same. Honestly, when you make a post like that, you just sound desperate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2018, 03:11 AM
 
34,606 posts, read 8,924,012 times
Reputation: 4801
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
OMG. Breathing and blinking are things your body does of its own volition. Integrating science and religion is not even close to being the same. Honestly, when you make a post like that, you just sound desperate.
Yes. Even without doing a crash course in critical thinking. simple everyday reasoning can show a false analogy where it pops up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2018, 09:00 PM
pdw pdw started this thread
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
1,467 posts, read 1,867,512 times
Reputation: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
Ok, so the young generation is less hypocritical (on average) compared to previous generations. I call it progress.
Someone who's understanding of Christianity comes entirely from negative portrayals in the media could certainly see it as hypocrisy. Someone who realizes what Christianity is about; not about being perfect, but about not being perfect and striving to do better; would not see it as such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
The basic incompatibility is the completely opposite epistemologies involved.

Religion: predetermine what the facts are, assert them and accept them without reference to evidence.
Science: examine evidence, see what is in fact true based on that, regardless of whether it happens to be convenient for some religious dogma or any other preconception.

The extent to which religion and science aren't in open conflict is brought about by people compartmentalizing these two epistemological approaches. Religious people tend to be skeptical about a lot of the things irreligious people are -- such as dishonest sales pitches, appeals to vanity, etc. They just are willing to suspend disbelief in the religious realm, and apply a different standard there. This is called special pleading. If you contain special pleading to the things you do at your religious club meetings and the privacy of your home, you might well appear to have managed to either reconcile them or to keep them as so-called "non-overlapping magisteria" at least publicly. But it's just appearances. They're really oil and water. As any thread on this forum pretty clearly highlights.
People 50 years ago didn't literally require God to appear out of the sky and present Himself to them in order to believe in Him. It's not science that has created that standard that some people seem to expect now, it's negative portrayals of religion in the media and a growing amount of misinformation being spread as society is increasingly secularized. Look no further than any internet news article about Syrian refugees' comment section to see the lies huge amounts of people are willing to believe about Islam. There is a willful ignorance in society when it comes to learning about religion, and that is only growing in the digital age as hoaxes are so easily spread, and people start to choose to get their news from increasingly disreputable sources that are biased to their ideals.

Last edited by pdw; 02-01-2018 at 09:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2018, 09:36 AM
 
Location: Land of the Caddo and Tonkawa
3,956 posts, read 1,490,772 times
Reputation: 5577
There's a general trend affecting younger generations that impacts them in many ways; not just in the area of spirituality and religion. There is less openness to studies and possibilities, and more of a negativity and cynicism. In other words, instead of leaving lots of possibilities and options, there have been concerted efforts to remove possibilities and limit the world and universe we live in. There used to be - though not explicitly - motions of "consider this", "this is a possibility", "this is worth exploring", etc. Now, it's more like "No, that doesn't exist", "no, don't waste your time with that", "no, that's foolishness", etc. As we start shutting off our minds to possibilities, our view (and ability) to view the world and the universe becomes ever more limiting. We basically shut off even possibilities coming at us to get through, because we've put up mental and spiritual walls. No one seems to be talking about this or pointing it out either, so it just continues on, and we just numbly and blindly accept it all as "normal".

It's really just a continuation of what's been going on in this country since it's origins. I'd encourage everyone to look at the education of people in this country in the mid-1850s, and see the rich and broad teachings that students often got. I tend to use the example of Henry David Thoreau, who had an an amazing array of teachings and studies, even as a kid. It even exceeded the types of studies of post-graduate work these days. You could jump another 50 years and see a decline in the level and extent of studies of average Americans. Jump another 50 years, and you'll see a continual decline. It's all part of the same trend, which affects us more and more over time, in more areas.

Now, many (most) young people get their information from the Internet and loose media, and less books and "firm" media. It's just more dumbing down, as well as more influence from the powers that be, and the powers that want to limit the control and thinking of today's people. Just as with food and nutrition, a person today has to spend large amounts of time doing their own research and own thinking, because it's simply not there and not around us like it used to be. People are completely deluded with the notion of time passing by and supposed increases in knowledge and advancement. But though there is some of that, the key areas that affect us as a people (and our mental and even spiritual strength) are weakening far beyond any advances over time. But this too isn't discussed or highlighted. The powers that be in our modern world thrive under this dysfunction. If we really woke up, we'd be a threat to them. If we fully used our brains again, we'd see through their ways (and what we let go by) and change the trend.

This whole discussion far exceeds merely religion and/or spirituality. It touches on education, culture, philosophy, sociology, science, psychology, logic, and many other areas.

Last edited by Thoreau424; 02-02-2018 at 09:48 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2018, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,070 posts, read 8,573,982 times
Reputation: 6006
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw View Post
Someone who's understanding of Christianity comes entirely from negative portrayals in the media could certainly see it as hypocrisy. Someone who realizes what Christianity is about; not about being perfect, but about not being perfect and striving to do better; would not see it as such.
"What Christianity is about" depends entirely on who you talk to. Your view represents a good chunk of Christianity; the other view about "being perfect" is the view of (too) many others. Characterizing it as "negative portrayals" in a media that is somehow in thrall to a vast conspiracy to purposely misrepresent Christianity is not something I'm inclined to buy.

You seem to represent the liberal Christian version of "my tribe gets to decide what Christianity is and anything that disagrees with that is not Christian or maybe a media conspiracy".
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw View Post
People 50 years ago didn't literally require God to appear out of the sky and present Himself to them in order to believe in Him.
Due to taboos, blasphemy laws, and the tighter hegemony that religion had on society, it was not commonly a position that was openly taken, the further back you go in history. I very much doubt that no one held those view, however. Bertrand Russel for one example, that's over 50 years ago.

You seem to think it's unreasonable for god to be evidenced -- whether by himself or by his followers. Yet you would not accept a claim from me that my friend Shaun the Leprechaun can cure cancer, without it being evidenced. Shaun being invisible and unwilling to demonstrate his power to the "unbelieving" would, I'd wager, be a HUGE red flag for you. So just apply that to your god and you'll understand us "requiring" god to present himself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw View Post
It's not science that has created that standard that some people seem to expect now, it's negative portrayals of religion in the media and a growing amount of misinformation being spread as society is increasingly secularized. Look no further than any internet news article about Syrian refugees' comment section to see the lies huge amounts of people are willing to believe about Islam. There is a willful ignorance in society when it comes to learning about religion, and that is only growing in the digital age as hoaxes are so easily spread, and people start to choose to get their news from increasingly disreputable sources that are biased to their ideals.
It is probably true that society is less literate about theology / dogma / religion than in the past, but I'd hardly characterize this as "willful ignorance". I'd characterize it as indifference.

The notion that evidence can be followed to conclusions and common logical fallacies and misperceptions can be controlled for, IS in direct conflict with religious faith. Not by design, but just inherently. This is essentially the position of science and the idea behind the scientific method.

Yes it's true that if people were raised in religion, in a very religious society, that they'd be more credulous about religious truth claims. I don't see a basis to bemoan this however. All that's happening is that religion, religious dogma and religious "truth" now must play on a level playing field in the marketplace of ideas. And it's losing in that marketplace, both by failing to compete and by being crowded out by other voices. The un-deserved deference and un-earned respect religion has historically enjoyed, is eroding, and nearly gone. This would not necessarily be a problem if religious faith actually had the ability to evidence its claims, but alas and alack, it cannot.

Too bad, so sad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2018, 04:59 PM
 
10,520 posts, read 4,149,112 times
Reputation: 1193
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
"What Christianity is about" depends entirely on who you talk to. Your view represents a good chunk of Christianity; the other view about "being perfect" is the view of (too) many others. Characterizing it as "negative portrayals" in a media that is somehow in thrall to a vast conspiracy to purposely misrepresent Christianity is not something I'm inclined to buy.

You seem to represent the liberal Christian version of "my tribe gets to decide what Christianity is and anything that disagrees with that is not Christian or maybe a media conspiracy".

Due to taboos, blasphemy laws, and the tighter hegemony that religion had on society, it was not commonly a position that was openly taken, the further back you go in history. I very much doubt that no one held those view, however. Bertrand Russel for one example, that's over 50 years ago.

You seem to think it's unreasonable for god to be evidenced -- whether by himself or by his followers. Yet you would not accept a claim from me that my friend Shaun the Leprechaun can cure cancer, without it being evidenced. Shaun being invisible and unwilling to demonstrate his power to the "unbelieving" would, I'd wager, be a HUGE red flag for you. So just apply that to your god and you'll understand us "requiring" god to present himself.

It is probably true that society is less literate about theology / dogma / religion than in the past, but I'd hardly characterize this as "willful ignorance". I'd characterize it as indifference.

The notion that evidence can be followed to conclusions and common logical fallacies and misperceptions can be controlled for, IS in direct conflict with religious faith. Not by design, but just inherently. This is essentially the position of science and the idea behind the scientific method.

Yes it's true that if people were raised in religion, in a very religious society, that they'd be more credulous about religious truth claims. I don't see a basis to bemoan this however. All that's happening is that religion, religious dogma and religious "truth" now must play on a level playing field in the marketplace of ideas. And it's losing in that marketplace, both by failing to compete and by being crowded out by other voices. The un-deserved deference and un-earned respect religion has historically enjoyed, is eroding, and nearly gone. This would not necessarily be a problem if religious faith actually had the ability to evidence its claims, but alas and alack, it cannot.

Too bad, so sad.
I love you and jeol olsteen. for belief based self help you guys are awesome. joel helping bible thumpers and you helping, well, thumping bilbers.

it brings a tear to my eyes. My side even hurts, sometimes even more than my back side does from your two groups personal need based belied systems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top