Religion is responsible for the advancement of science (churches, zealous, Catholic)
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.
No. Such faith has been used to persecute people of different groups. Such faith as been used to swindle money out of people looking to realign their chakras, or to cure their cancer with crystals, and other exotic 'health' cures.
If they have evidence for something other than the physical, I will look at it. But the large number of fake fakirs (I THINK that is what my half brother calls them) makes me think they most likely are all fake.
One is a belief people accept is true, and will kill for. The other is known fiction. I do not understand why you are trying to compare the two.
Faith hasn't been used to do those evil things. Evil people (possibly even non-believers) have used faith as a weapon for people to use. Those things are 100% political in my opinion. Politicians use faith as a weapon.
You was talking about new atheists (plural) not following your attempt to control the direction of this thread.
Your excuse makes no sense in light of that.
It does, because the atheists who attack faith only look at the religious stories as literal stories. They don't even seem to care about any other interpretation. Even if the other interpretation makes sense, they choose to look at the one that makes the least sense. They make themselves look foolish when they do that.
That is simply your opinion, pretty much unsupported by fact. You are, of course, free to believe as you like, but don't expect other people to swallow it.
There are many who think that the ancient mystics were more scientifically minded than the general people. It's not just my opinion. I got the idea from many others.
What if I were to rephrase it this way: The most enlightened scientists of our age would have been seen as mystics in the ancient world, before science was developed.
Surely there must have been scientifically minded people back then.
There are many who think that the ancient mystics were more scientifically minded than the general people. It's not just my opinion. I got the idea from many others.
What if I were to rephrase it this way: The most enlightened scientists of our age would have been seen as mystics in the ancient world, before science was developed.
Surely there must have been scientifically minded people back then.
The scientific method did not exist in ancient times. Even the Greeks who were able to calculate the circumstance of the Earth did not use the scientific method as it had yet to be developed.
Maybe your arguments would be sounder if you learnt not only the history of science but also what atheism was and that it is not science. So many of your posts on the religious forum as well as in another forum run into trouble because you not only falsely lump people and ideas by your preconceptions of them but you appear unwilling to learn your errors when pointed out to you.
I doubt that before science that many atheists thought the universe started by random atoms coming together. Atheism is not the same as science and many of what you consider traits of atheists is also thought by theists.
But I don't think you are actually interested in an open and honest discussion. You only wish to present your idea that society with religion is superior to one without, and without being willing to look at the negatives of a society with or positives of one without.
So yes at a time when almost all learned men were thought to be religious and it was practically illegal to not be religious, religious men lead in the precursor to science. Another thing to note is that there are also no contributions to knowledge from the United States in the 15th Century. And women were not common in natural philosophy either during that period. And I do not know if all the Ancient Greek philosophers believed in their Gods.
It does, because the atheists who attack faith only look at the religious stories as literal stories. They don't even seem to care about any other interpretation. Even if the other interpretation makes sense, they choose to look at the one that makes the least sense. They make themselves look foolish when they do that.
No you have it wrong. Atheists tend to attack the idea that the words of the Bible for example are literal. When someone claims that Noah's flood was a real event and the geological record confirms it and it should be taught in science it should be attacked. When someone claims that it is a story telling us that we should behave and so should animals then what is there to attack. In fact many atheists have stated on the forums that there are wonderful stories in the Bible.
Your refusal to face reality or to be honest is your problem not one of the atheists. I don't think you have been attacked for simply believing that there is a God but when you make false claims about others or clsim, without evidence, that belief in a God makes people better than expect to be challenged.
The person who looks foolish is the one making claims that are easily disproved. Non literal interpretations of the Bible are much more likely to be attacked by theists than by non believers. And not just more often but much more vehemently. Facts matter when you make claims about other folks. Check out the threads about liberal Christians on the Christianity forum.
It does, because the atheists who attack faith only look at the religious stories as literal stories. They don't even seem to care about any other interpretation. Even if the other interpretation makes sense, they choose to look at the one that makes the least sense. They make themselves look foolish when they do that.
No, who looks foolish are the christians who argue among themselves about what is factual and what is allegorical. You all can't even decide if the bible is fiction or non-fiction. And as long as that is true, you cannot then try to mix a discussion of science and christianity.
The scientific method did not exist in ancient times. Even the Greeks who were able to calculate the circumstance of the Earth did not use the scientific method as it had yet to be developed.
Maybe your arguments would be sounder if you learnt not only the history of science but also what atheism was and that it is not science. So many of your posts on the religious forum as well as in another forum run into trouble because you not only falsely lump people and ideas by your preconceptions of them but you appear unwilling to learn your errors when pointed out to you.
I doubt that before science that many atheists thought the universe started by random atoms coming together. Atheism is not the same as science and many of what you consider traits of atheists is also thought by theists.
But I don't think you are actually interested in an open and honest discussion. You only wish to present your idea that society with religion is superior to one without, and without being willing to look at the negatives of a society with or positives of one without.
So yes at a time when almost all learned men were thought to be religious and it was practically illegal to not be religious, religious men lead in the precursor to science. Another thing to note is that there are also no contributions to knowledge from the United States in the 15th Century. And women were not common in natural philosophy either during that period. And I do not know if all the Ancient Greek philosophers believed in their Gods.
I think the only who are suggesting a magically instantaneous universe are atheists.
As I said, considering things you say, you should not be insulting atheists. This is one of those things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
Faith hasn't been used to do those evil things. Evil people (possibly even non-believers) have used faith as a weapon for people to use. Those things are 100% political in my opinion. Politicians use faith as a weapon.
Wait, your first sentence (wrongly) says faith has never been used but the second sentence says it has.
Ignoring your opinion in sentence three, while politicians have used faith, you are simply ignoring others abusing, including the religious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
It does, because the atheists who attack faith only look at the religious stories as literal stories. They don't even seem to care about any other interpretation. Even if the other interpretation makes sense, they choose to look at the one that makes the least sense. They make themselves look foolish when they do that.
Nonsense. Atheists dismiss the Bible for various reasons, and we point out that when stories are taken literally, they are unbelievable. When presented as allegory, then we argue we have no reason to follow allegorical stories. And allegories for what? What is Genesis an allegory for?
And I have frequently pointed out the allegorical nature of the gospels, yet it is the Christians who argue they are literal histories.
And the laws and letters have to be taken literally, as that is what they are meant to be. You know, the text that tell us how to live; that argue homosexuality is wrong; that none Christians are evil; who to stone to death; and so on.
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.
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.
