Science vs Religion

[teknight]

Silicone. One day I was sealing thousands of windows with silicone, and the word became silly-cone.

Then I felt like a soft-serve icecream with a happy face made of sweets. THAT would be a silly cone.

Thousands? Do you find it ill advised, given your dwelling, to throw rock indoors?

 

[ImOnIt]

Thousands? Do you find it ill advised, given your dwelling, to throw rock indoors?

I throw phones and bones and... tomes, but never stones.

I guess tome doesn't rhyme.


I thought silicone was based on silicon. Going to check now, thanks for the reminder.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

I throw phones and bones and... tomes, but never stones.

I guess tome doesn't rhyme.

Scones?

Really hard, week-old ones?

 

[ImOnIt]

Scones?

Really hard, week-old ones?

The queen says scones. We pronounce it scon, and thereby it evades my rhyme filter.

Cheese and leek and bacon scones i say. Crumpets, dark ale and... english thugs. Mindbendingly stupid youths. Football. Shoe-shine lads. These are a few of my favourite english things...

 

[teknight]

I agree with most of this.

The basic point I was trying to make by saying our laws have a JC slant is to draw a contrast between them and laws in parts of the world where they cut the hands off of thieves and cane people for drug offenses. The JC influence is clearly at play there in the "forgive those who trespass" sense as opposed to the eye-for-an-eye punishment plan. And while I agree murder being bad is a no-brainer, "thou shalt not kill" is also a JC punishment limiter...most western countries have banned capital punishment, and those that haven't rarely employ it. Most executions take place in places like China, Africa, and the Middle East. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

There's no question that the JC ethic is an imperfect model. I never said anything in support of it, merely stated what I perceive to be a fact, that it is the basis for the legal framework in most western countries. I invite vitriol-free debate.

Certainly there are views and laws based on pointless morality that need to be changed, like those that limit marriage to breeders, but I definitely see us moving in the right direction here...consider where we were 20 years ago. At least we're talking about gay marriage now.

This has just occurred to me:
Christianity's been around for 2000 years. It's been a force to be reckoned with for 1700 or so of those years. Only VERY recently have some countries started limiting inhumane practices. That'd be in the last 60 years or so. OBVIOUSLY, Christianity's at work here.

Yup. It's clearly at play.

 

[ImOnIt]

mfw when

breeders

-.- Sure is intelligent and reasonable.

Not killing people generally makes good sense. It isn't borrowed, but is good practise. Same as theft and all, but the commandments are not the basis of justice.

 

[JamieJ424]

"Some countries." Which countries might those be? Since I'm way wrong, must be the Shiara law countries then? Wait! It's China right? Is it China? Give me a hint?

This has just occurred to me:
Christianity's been around for 2000 years. It's been a force to be reckoned with for 1700 or so of those years. Only VERY recently have some countries started limiting inhumane practices. That'd be in the last 60 years or so. OBVIOUSLY, Christianity's at work here.

Yup. It's clearly at play.

 

[teknight]

"Some countries." Which countries might those be? Since I'm way wrong, must be the Shiara law countries then? Wait! It's China right? Is it China? Give me a hint?

They were hanging people in Britain in the 50s.
They've been throttling back the death penalty in the US within the last 50 years or so? (I admit, I'm clueless on exact dates)... Except for Texas. Texas is putting in an Express Lane for the death penalty. (hehehe, Ron White).
Those are the two countries I had in mind, since I know about the death penalty there.

You've still not proven that it's the effect of Judeo Christian morals.

Oh, yeah, before I forget. COOL YOUR JETS!

 

[JamieJ424]

Oh! Thanks for the info. nd when did they stop caning people in the US and cutting off their hands and putting out their eyes?

Just wondering.

They were hanging people in Britain in the 50s.
They've been throttling back the death penalty in the US within the last 50 years or so? (I admit, I'm clueless on exact dates)... Except for Texas. Texas is putting in an Express Lane for the death penalty. (hehehe, Ron White).
Those are the two countries I had in mind, since I know about the death penalty there.

You've still not proven that it's the effect of Judeo Christian morals.

Oh, yeah, before I forget. COOL YOUR JETS!

 

[vrosej10]

This has just occurred to me:
Christianity's been around for 2000 years. It's been a force to be reckoned with for 1700 or so of those years. Only VERY recently have some countries started limiting inhumane practices. That'd be in the last 60 years or so. OBVIOUSLY, Christianity's at work here.

Yup. It's clearly at play.

That majority of this has to do with the Enlightenment and changes in the beliefs behind legal punishments. This has little to nothing to do with Christianity. A lot of the changes related to modernity such as separation of church and state have not occured in a lot of the Islamic countries, so this is why things are different. i don't imagine Afghanistan is much different to Britain in the 1500's and it was a Christian country them. I'd like to see you put your argument about the compassion of Christianity to someone who had been through the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[teknight]

That majority of this has to do with the Enlightenment and changes in the beliefs behind legal punishments. This has little to nothing to do with Christianity. A lot of the changes related to modernity such as separation of church and state have not occured in a lot of the Islamic countries, so this is why things are different. i don't imagine Afghanistan is much different to Britain in the 1500's and it was a Christian country them. I'd like to see you put your argument about the compassion of Christianity to someone who had been through the Spanish Inquisition.

Well, fwiw, Jamie was saying that Christ's teachings were behind the removal of the death penalty in Christian countries. I was just pointing out that his opinion doesn't stand up to reason or fact.

Oh! Thanks for the info. nd when did they stop caning people in the US and cutting off their hands and putting out their eyes?

Just wondering.

Wonder all you want.
They used to burn witches at the stake in the US. I think they even made a movie about it. Those were far more religious folk than current society.
Mind you, I'm not saying my counter point proves anything, just as your misdirection to other countries' inhumane practices proves NOTHING in favor of religion. And, that's a fact.

 

[welkin]

To be honest, religion is a great vehicle for propagation of ideas. But neither religion nor science can take the credit for being the source of morality.

I like Nietzsche's idea of religion as a political weapon for the disenfranchised (if I vaguely remember what I read way back in college...). That's why you have sayings like "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven."

 

[teknight]

To be honest, religion is a great vehicle for propagation of ideas. But neither religion nor science can take the credit for being the source of morality.

I like Nietzsche's idea of religion as a political weapon for the disenfranchised (if I vaguely remember what I read way back in college...). That's why you have sayings like "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Wasn't it Marx's opiate for the masses?

And some have seen the Christ figure as a socialist.

 

[vrosej10]

Well, fwiw, Jamie was saying that Christ's teachings were behind the removal of the death penalty in Christian countries. I was just pointing out that his opinion doesn't stand up to reason or fact.


Wonder all you want.
They used to burn witches at the stake in the US. I think they even made a movie about it. Those were far more religious folk than current society.
Mind you, I'm not saying my counter point proves anything, just as your misdirection to other countries' inhumane practices proves NOTHING in favor of religion. And, that's a fact.

My bad. FYI, they hung more women than they burnt at the stake. Some places they hung them and then burnt them for good measure. It sucked to be a single woman or a bit different in those days. Scotland was huge for the witch burnings etc. Religion is a bad thing to run a country with.

 

[vrosej10]

Wasn't it Marx's opiate for the masses?

And some have seen the Christ figure as a socialist.

I think it was Marx's disliked religion because it reduced the opportunity to develop class consciousness.

 

[JamieJ424]

Well, fwiw, Jamie was saying that Christ's teachings were behind the removal of the death penalty in Christian countries. I was just pointing out that his opinion doesn't stand up to reason or fact.

You're right. I concede the point. Christian values had nothing to do with it. None of the people writing or voting on any laws passed ever subscribed to any sort of religious ideology that found its way into those laws. My bad.

Wonder all you want.
They used to burn witches at the stake in the US. I think they even made a movie about it. Those were far more religious folk than current society.
Mind you, I'm not saying my counter point proves anything, just as your misdirection to other countries' inhumane practices proves NOTHING in favor of religion. And, that's a fact.

I concede again. You're right. Religion is valueless, has always been valueless, and just because a lot of good, compassionate, intelligent people subscribe to various faiths across the globe doesn't change its inherent valuelessness, cruelty, and stupidity. Because they did used to burn and hang witches, and the Spanish Inquisition happened, and also priests abuse little boys, and plus Christ was undoubtedly a communist. Therefore religion is bad, and to suggest otherwise only shows I'm a moron blindly living by every word of some faith-peddling TV evangelist. QED.

Why else would I make some outrageously unprovable connection between laws written in predomintantly judeo-christian countries and the faith of the lawmakers, which I foolishly and speciously assumed was, in fact, judeo-christian? Wow! Looking back on it now I can't imagine what I must have been thinking.

The most amusing thing about this, among many amusing things, is that I'm not even a person of faith.

 

[BunnyHopper]

Wasn't it Marx's opiate for the masses?

And some have seen the Christ figure as a socialist.

Marx thought that religion was a way to oppress the working classes (duh).

I think your second point is one that is interesting to me. Especially as you say "some have seen". You're an American, I presume, so you're used to Christianity having some major right wing attachments. That to me, as a European, is very odd. I've seen some of the American televangelist speeches. It's amazing how easy it is to twist the same book into justifying what ever you want it to justify. Want more money? Well of course Jesus wants you to have more money as well!

If I didn't have any morals, I'd go the Ron L. Hubbard way and create a new religion. Perhaps I'd be a bit lazy and just start a new Christian denomination. Though some good marketing would be needed as there's plenty of competition (there are around 40000 Christian denominations). Just have to take note from some of the media whores out there and burn some Korans or picket the funeral of the week.

 

[Chiara_searches]

You're right. I concede the point. Christian values had nothing to do with it. None of the people writing or voting on any laws passed ever subscribed to any sort of religious ideology that found its way into those laws. My bad.




I concede again. You're right. Religion is valueless, has always been valueless, and just because a lot of good, compassionate, intelligent people subscribe to various faiths across the globe doesn't change its inherent valuelessness, cruelty, and stupidity. Because they did used to burn and hang witches, and the Spanish Inquisition happened, and also priests abuse little boys, and plus Christ was undoubtedly a communist. Therefore religion is bad, and to suggest otherwise only shows I'm a moron blindly living by every word of some faith-peddling TV evangelist. QED.

Why else would I make some outrageously unprovable connection between laws written in predomintantly judeo-christian countries and the faith of the lawmakers, which I foolishly and speciously assumed was, in fact, judeo-christian? Wow! Looking back on it now I can't imagine what I must have been thinking.

The most amusing thing about this, among many amusing things, is that I'm not even a person of faith.

Do I have to get all domme on you now for these errors? I can try...but it brings a bit of "ewww that's so not me" to mind.

And the bold part is what was amusing me the other day, too. Because the misquotes were bringing a bit of "ewww that's so not him" to mind.

 

[Chiara_searches]

I consider myself a spiritual agnostic, for reasons posted elsewhere. So I'm a tad more spiritual than others who are "agnostic." I say that as a caveat to my opinions because a speaker's biases should be considered when evaluating the validity of his or her comments.

We have to remember that even though there are atrocities committed in the name of religion, there have been atrocities committed in the name of science. I am no scholar in either field, but eugenics and Tuskegee syphilis experiments come to mind when I think of atrocities done in the name of "science." There are likely many more over the last 300-400 years as science has developed. Neither side of the debate is without some blood on its hands.

I hope that what we are doing, however, is moving to a common ground. If those who are simply agnostic (i.e. without my "spiritual" label) or atheists have analyzed the issue and agree tolerance and acceptance gets us further than fighting, they are on a common ground with others. If those who are spiritual or religious realize that turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbor means tolerance and acceptance, they are on common ground with others. It seems to me that the important part is how to get to a place where we come together. It's not as important which road you take to get there. You may prefer the interstate and I the city streets. But hopefully we can all end up somewhere better than where we started.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh! Thanks for the info. nd when did they stop caning people in the US and cutting off their hands and putting out their eyes?

Just wondering.

You sound a bit passive aggressive, my friend.
But in general, the mid-1800 along with the abolition of slavery-- slaves, of course, were vulnerable to anything their owners wanted to do to them.

The last public whipping occurred in Delaware in 1952
There are a lot of links from these pages; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_corporal_punishment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment#History_of_corporal_punishment

Evidently, some US public schools were told to stop paddling students in the 1980s.

ETA: and that, I think is one difference between science and religion; religion demands answers (from other people, especially those in authority), science goes looking for answers (also known as research).

 

[JamieJ424]

You sound a bit passive aggressive, my friend.

I prefer to call it sarcasm. Potato/po-tah-to.

But in general, the mid-1800 along with the abolition of slavery-- slaves, of course, were vulnerable to anything their owners wanted to do to them.

The last public whipping occurred in Delaware in 1952
There are a lot of links from these pages; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_corporal_punishment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment#History_of_corporal_punishment

Evidently, some US public schools were told to stop paddling students in the 1980s.

No argument that slavery was wrong in every aspect. People should not be treated like animals or as property.

But corporal punishment is a bit different than maiming a criminal because the law calls for it. Or maybe I have that wrong too?

ETA: and that, I think is one difference between science and religion; religion demands answers (from other people, especially those in authority), science goes looking for answers (also known as research).

No argument from me. I'd even go so far as to say religion makes up its own answers. Like I said, I'm not a believer.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I consider myself a spiritual agnostic, for reasons posted elsewhere. So I'm a tad more spiritual than others who are "agnostic." I say that as a caveat to my opinions because a speaker's biases should be considered when evaluating the validity of his or her comments.

We have to remember that even though there are atrocities committed in the name of religion, there have been atrocities committed in the name of science. I am no scholar in either field, but eugenics and Tuskegee syphilis experiments come to mind when I think of atrocities done in the name of "science." There are likely many more over the last 300-400 years as science has developed. Neither side of the debate is without some blood on its hands.

yes, and those experiments were condemned by the general scientic community as soon as they were made public. The thing is, those experiments were always an affront to morality-- whereas the atrocities that religions commit are excused as the will of whatever god the religion worships.

I hope that what we are doing, however, is moving to a common ground. If those who are simply agnostic (i.e. without my "spiritual" label) or atheists have analyzed the issue and agree tolerance and acceptance gets us further than fighting, they are on a common ground with others. If those who are spiritual or religious realize that turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbor means tolerance and acceptance, they are on common ground with others. It seems to me that the important part is how to get to a place where we come together. It's not as important which road you take to get there. You may prefer the interstate and I the city streets. But hopefully we can all end up somewhere better than where we started.

I am all in favor of tolerance and acceptance. Always have been. And I practice what I preach.

• I have never once tried to pass a law to prevent Christians from marrying each other, or kicked my child out of my house for believing in God.
  
• I have never invited a believer to my home for a spot of dinner and atheistic proselyting.
  
• I've never followed a woman with two children in hand, telling her that she's going to hell because she won't let me, a total random fucking stranger on the street, tell her all about the word of god.
  
• I've never knocked a woman away from my child-- who was about to take a header down the stairs-- a half-hour after learning she was a Christian-- lest she infect my kid with evil Christian cooties.
  
• I've never appeared at the doors of my neighbors to tell them not to read the Bible.
  
• I've never engineered a "spontaneous" atheist (or Muslim) prayer at a highschool football game after Christian minority students pointed out that they felt threatened by the administration's sanctioned atheist (or Muslim) prayers. I've never pointed out that those very few Christian students never spoke up about it before so why do they have the nerve to complain now?
  
• I've never swerved my car to drive one of those pairs of Mormon bikeriders off the street, and believe me the impulse has been strong at times.

I'm ALL about tolerant.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I prefer to call it sarcasm. Potato/po-tah-to.

No argument that slavery was wrong in every aspect. People should not be treated like animals or as property.
But corporal punishment is a bit different than maiming a criminal because the law calls for it. Or maybe I have that wrong too?

lawfully sanctioned corporal punishment versus judicialy mandated corporal punishment? Potayto, potahto, as far as I'm concerned. But-- Come on, don't ask me to do your thinking for you. Read the links, do your own research, come to your own conclusions.

No argument from me. I'd even go so far as to say religion makes up its own answers. Like I said, I'm not a believer.

And, if you are asking me to provide answers for you, you risk me feeding you inventions. Don't trust my authority. Do your own research.

 

[midwestyankee]

The fundamental difference between religion and science is that religion believes that truth has already been found and its expression must be defended against all argument. Science believes that truth is incrementally discovered and actively encourages the questioning of the current truth.

 

[JamieJ424]

Excellent point. To this I'd add the research carried out on Jews during the Holocaust, not to mention animal vivisection.

We have to remember that even though there are atrocities committed in the name of religion, there have been atrocities committed in the name of science. I am no scholar in either field, but eugenics and Tuskegee syphilis experiments come to mind when I think of atrocities done in the name of "science." There are likely many more over the last 300-400 years as science has developed. Neither side of the debate is without some blood on its hands.