|
lol @ christianity (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by djmetatron
but this is such a cop-out. you can't muddle this argument into two sides that believe differen't but equally unprovable things.
science and evolution is the collection of data and tested theory. the religious side is simply a story.
i realize that religion has helped people cope with the hardships of life, but religious people have to grow and accept the facts of science and realize that with time science will discover things that, while being very helpful in life, may be contrary to their beliefs. |
People always equate science and religion as a negation. They are talking about two different things. There is little to no overlap. One deals with nature, one deals with the supernatural. Thats it. No discussion. I dont get why people get into knots about it all. |
|
|
| lex400sc |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
If he were to show the progression from nothing to a specific deity, and then show that process replicated and point out patterns in that progression, it would be a valid argument. Right now its just kind 'Heres the feeling I get' and youre resonating with it.
There are no sources, no research, and no shown knowledge. |
what don't you understand about it? imperfect understanding is the human condition and religion is the layman's way of dealing with that lack of knowledge. you really want me to sit here and write thesis paper on the history of religion? somehow i doubt that you'd buy it even if i did. christianity is no different from any other religion that blew up, took over the world, then died. just because it probably won't happen in our lifetimes doesn't mean 200 years from now 12 year old kids won't be laughing at us in their history class. i've been on the internet long enough to know better than to try and convert a religious person so i'll just leave you this thought to think over...or scoff at... "religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" - seneca |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by djmetatron
there has been much research on this subject, the psycological human need for religion. you simply want him to be an expert in the subject and cite sources immediately to breakdown his argument. a sign of weakness.
really though, this theory is best evidenced with the history of religion and the fact that no one religion over thousands of years has stood the test of time. it has to constantly change to keep up with scientific fact. |
Using phrases such as "the history of religion" is the kind of sweeping generalization that rendered his diatribe useless. |
|
|
| lex400sc |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
Using phrases such as "the history of religion" is the kind of sweeping generalization that rendered his diatribe useless. |
funny i find your replies to my posts even more useless. omg i need sources for your thoughts be validated omg! be sure to use proper footnoting or it's all bs! lol!!! |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by lex400sc
you really want me to sit here and write thesis paper on the history of religion? |
You seem to be pretty sure about it all. Youd think you could point out some of the research youve done on the subject if youre going to try to sway people to your side.
| quote: | | christianity is no different from any other religion that blew up, took over the world, then died. |
again, what other religions are you talking about and how are they relevant to the pattern |
|
|
| djmetatron |
| quote: | Originally posted by Floorfiller
it's a little ironic that you are rejecting the idea of religion because there is no factual evidence, yet you are justifying the opposing view in this thread with similar constructions in thought, which without support is also conjecture and unproven... |
it's not that i'm rejecting it as a valid belief because of a lack of evidence. it obviously can't be disproven. i'm rejecting as a form of evidence that trumps science.
but again that's not the main lex400sc was making. the point is that humans have a basic flaw in there psycology that causes them to crave for answers to unknowns because of fear. and often they don't care if the answers conflict and don't have evidence. |
|
|
| lex400sc |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
You seem to be pretty sure about it all. Youd think you could point out some of the research youve done on the subject if youre going to try to sway people to your side.
again, what other religions are you talking about and how are they relevant to the pattern |
i'm not trying to sway anyone. i'll reiterate my earlier thought... there will always be the spiritually needy, people who require a crutch and guidance and reassurances that they are loved by some invisible person in the sky and that there will be a happy ending... i doubt anything i can convey through text on their monitor will shake this codependency on faith. there's no purpose in trying to convert the religious, teach the ignorant or save the poor... because this is life. they will always exist. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by djmetatron
the point is that humans have a basic flaw in there psycology that causes them to crave for answers to unknowns because of fear. and often they don't care if the answers conflict and don't have evidence. |
And thats what we are debating hehe. I really cant see anyone standing in front of a science board and saying "I have proven that God is made up" and when asked why "Oh. Well....fear and human psychology of course" |
|
|
| Floorfiller |
| quote: | Originally posted by djmetatron
there has been much research on this subject, the psycological human need for religion. you simply want him to be an expert in the subject and cite sources immediately to breakdown his argument. a sign of weakness.
really though, this theory is best evidenced with the history of religion and the fact that no one religion over thousands of years has stood the test of time. it has to constantly change to keep up with scientific fact. |
couldn't the religious argument also be argued better by a theologist? which we don't have here...a strength the scientific argument has is that science is much more commonly understood and at a greater depth than religion.
and the fact that religion has evolved...have the societies that have believed in these things not evolved? perhaps if we had a society which was unchanged that might be a logical conclusion, in fact, i'm sure there are some tribal religions which have remained virtually unchanged historically because of their isolation....so i don't really see how that is evidence of anything....those are probably the oldest religions in the world and are very similar to the original belief structures... |
|
|
| lex400sc |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
And thats what we are debating hehe. I really cant see anyone standing in front of a science board and saying "I have proven that God is made up" and when asked why "Oh. Well....fear and human psychology of course" |
no one said god was made up, but organized religion and all it's doctrines certainly are. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by lex400sc
codependency on faith. |
I havent seen any evidence of a codependency yet |
|
|
| djmetatron |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
And thats what we are debating hehe. I really cant see anyone standing in front of a science board and saying "I have proven that God is made up" and when asked why "Oh. Well....fear and human psychology of course" |
your not paying attention. it's not a proof! i already said that. you can't prove it ffs. does that alone make it true? no, but that seems to be your only argument. |
|
|
|
|
