Science vs Religion

[teknight]

I disagree.

I think it's wonderful that people now have total freedom of choice to believe whatever they want. Some people that are vested in religion in earthly ways, such as the lovely Pope who lives a life of luxury while his largest base of followers are poorer than church mice mind the pun, would hate having his bread and butter questioned. However, someone who thinks that freedom of choice is the best thing God ever gave to man (eh? I made another joke see? ) sees this newfound push to give everyone the ability to believe what they want WITHOUT being ostracized for it is wonderful. Normal religious people like myself, in my opinion, welcome this change.

You're free to believe what you want... (as long as you're not hoping to translate that into enforceable law, right? That applies to gays trying to get married, and people trying to impose Sharia, for instance). Hmm... guess you're not as free as you thought.

So, you're free, but you don't want that which you hold dear to be criticized in the slightest? Well, that's not nice.

Here's the rub of the problem: You don't wanna be questioned. You don't wanna be ostracized (apparently, to question and point out flaws is to ostracize someone. Oh, well). That's YOUR problem, though, not mine. I'm not dictating your choices, but your lack of openness to questioning and pointing out flaws is an attempt to dictate my choices. Guess what? I'm free (and not because some fairy tale says so, nor because a really intelligent man (Aquinas) busted his brains trying to figure out how to mold reality to the fairy tale, thus resulting in the myth of free will. Without a god, the story of free will is just that, a myth. OK, OK, it's a myth in the religious context... for are we really free to act and think? Or are we constrained by chains of causation we're unaware of? ) ... I'm free to do as I please. And, don't worry. My questioning is most likely only entrenching you further in your beliefs. I'm making you a ... "stronger" believer. You're welcome.

 

[teknight]

Ah. I see now that the idea of cogent counter arguments went out the window a long time ago.

Carry on.

What's the problem?
You said religion can be used for both good and bad. Did you not?
You said religion can't be blamed for the bad stuff, didn't you?
Then, why does religion, which has no negative impact whatsoever, have a positive impact?

And, if religion is blameless, why does science get the blame for Hiroshima? What? Religious folks are only good, but scientists can be evil too? Sweet. I say scientists win by having more choices. I set that criterion and hold it as truth.*

Answer me point by point. And feel free to reiterate your original point, quote yourself, if you must.

*silly, huh?

 

[satindesire]

Answer me point by point. And feel free to reiterate your original point, quote yourself, if you must.

*silly, huh?

No.

This isn't a debate anymore if it even ever was on your part. It's become an internet pissing match and I don't want any part of it. I can see you weren't really interested in talking WITH me at all, but AT me, and that's something I won't tolerate. Blind hatred is just as bad as blind faith and blind people can't debate about beliefs they don't want to understand.

You win, okay? Good for you. Here's a cookie. I'm done.

 

[teknight]

No.

This isn't a debate anymore. It's become an internet pissing match and I don't want any part of it.

You win, okay? Good for you. Here's a cookie. I'm done.

Win by veiled ad hominem to sd.
It wasn't a debate because your argument destroyed itself.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I disagree.

I think it's wonderful that people now have total freedom of choice to believe whatever they want. Some people that are vested in religion in earthly ways, such as the lovely Pope who lives a life of luxury while his largest base of followers are poorer than church mice mind the pun, would hate having his bread and butter questioned. However, someone who thinks that freedom of choice is the best thing God ever gave to man (eh? I made another joke see? ) sees this newfound push to give everyone the ability to believe what they want WITHOUT being ostracized for it is wonderful. Normal religious people like myself, in my opinion, welcome this change.

AS long as they don't try to force me to behave, please address this, in the ways that their beliefs dictate for them.

That will be the biggest fucking change in religion-- that alone would tear most churches apart.

Ah. I see now that the idea of cogent counter arguments went out the window a long time ago.

Carry on.

You did say that, however.

 

[satindesire]

Win by veiled ad hominem to sd.
It wasn't a debate because your argument destroyed itself.

No, it wasn't a debate. My argument didn't destroy itself. My argument was that your view of black and white was based on some kind of belief that the world has to choose between only-good white science and superbad evil religion.

The world is made up of shades of grey. That's my point. That's not something that can be destroyed, it's fact.

But you never understood or even tried. You were just looking for target practice. I may be a masochist, but I'm not consenting to the kind of tar-and-feathering that you're offering. That kind of fanaticism is disgusting no matter who wields it...religious or atheistic.

 

[satindesire]

AS long as they don't try to force me to behave, please address this, in the ways that their beliefs dictate for them.

That will be the biggest fucking change in religion-- that alone would tear most churches apart.


You did say that, however.

I would absolutely never EVER try and force anyone to believe the things that I do. I think that's wrong. I don't criticize people for not believing what I believe, I think that's wrong. I wouldn't think less of anyone who didn't believe what I believed...I think that's wrong too.

Being left alone about our beliefs is something I think both religious people and atheist people can agree on.

 

[teknight]

Accurate within a margin of error. Because there is always an error. And calculations magnifies them.*

And depending on what kind of experiment we are talking about, the ability to manipulate the data and make them say what you want is actually pretty amazing.

No, you can be really immoral when it comes to set up an experiment to prove your own agenda.

Especially if any opposing voice is silenced. Sounds familiar, right?

The only saving grace is that if you give it enough time, reality will show the truth.


* due to the amazing calculating power of our computers, I'm noticing that a lot of younger scientist have no idea that the act to manipulate data add errors, and that the magnitude of your error is not necessarily of the magnitude of the last digit of your number ...

Rida, you're right. There are a lot of shady experiments, there are a lot of misguided ...screw misguided, downright evil people doing science, for any number of reasons.
You're right...computing power is making bad reasoning easier.
However, if you disclose your data, and your methods, then, if you've been dishonest it will become obvious, won't it?

And...even "good" experiments carry margin of error- it's a computational thing, ultimately. Does that make all experiments bad? No. It makes all of them circumspect, which is the scientific way to look at things, isn't it?

OK. Fine. So the global warming agenda is bunch of crock. Who is this cabal that's manipulating and hiding the truth, by silencing scientists who hold the alternative the world over? Or have I read too may Icke books? (one too many, to be exact)

 

[Stella_Omega]

I would absolutely never EVER try and force anyone to believe the things that I do. I think that's wrong. I don't criticize people for not believing what I believe, I think that's wrong. I wouldn't think less of anyone who didn't believe what I believed...I think that's wrong too.

I wish oh how I wish, that you were the majority of Christians.

But you aren't.

Being left alone about our beliefs is something I think both religious people and atheist people can agree on.

But they DON'T.

They PASS LAWS, in America.. They STONE PEOPLE TO DEATH,in the Islamic world. They TELL INNOCENT PEOPLE THEY WILL GO TO HELL FOR WHO THEY ARE, all over this globe.

One mother fucking thing the religious DO NOT DO is leave people alone about their beliefs. Or their actions.

The ONLY thing atheists tell religious people about their beliefs is that belief is NOT universal, nor is it necessary to a good and full life.

Oh, and that the religious cannot pass laws forcing belief-based behavior on the rest of us.

Do you, by the way, notice the words I keep using; behave? behavior? actions? Xtians, see, are welcome to believe that god hates fags. I mean, just for instance. But they aren't content with that, they feel absolutely justified in visiting gods hatred against fags on their own account. They PASS LAWS forcing fags to behave as if they, too, believed in the Christian God.

Or how about the stupid fuck of a preacher, who even after the POTUS told him to please, please not burn a Koran-- went ahead and did so? OH MY GHAWD I cannot stomach the excuses and bullshit I'm hearing about that. The man should be arrested for treason. But you know what HIS god, the TROOOO god tells him to do-- is good and okay,and its all the fault of those infidels over there.

 

[satindesire]

I wish oh how I wish, that you were the majority of Christians.

So do I.

Trust, I fully realize my view about my religion is extremely healthy. I wish more people DID believe the way I did, but if I tried to do that, I'd be no better than anyone else who thinks their way is the only way. It's kind of a weird little thing I've got going on, there.

 

[teknight]

No, it wasn't a debate. My argument didn't destroy itself. My argument was that your view of black and white was based on some kind of belief that the world has to choose between only-good white science and superbad evil religion.

The world is made up of shades of grey. That's my point. That's not something that can be destroyed, it's fact.

But you never understood or even tried. You were just looking for target practice. I may be a masochist, but I'm not consenting to the kind of tar-and-feathering that you're offering. That kind of fanaticism is disgusting no matter who wields it...religious or atheistic.

No longer veiled ad hominem. We're making progress.
My black and white belief?
Funny. I seem to have said that religion isn't evil, but misused in my first post. Of course, that's all black.
As a way of understanding the world? Yup. Science wins over superstition 110% of the time. Demonstrable fact.
You don't like that religion is painted black. Fact.
You're not to blame for religion's evils. Fact.
You're not consenting that you made a mistake. My interpretation of what's gone down.
In painting the world gray you don't wanna see religion as evil*. That's my assumption, no longer a fact.

*even in a few isolated instances, to which you have hinted.

You say that it's uncool to attack religion, but you're oddly quiet when people acting on religion's behalf are in the wrong... except for the pope. He's rich. Fuck that guy.

Maybe religion needs to go on a diet, and stop eating fast food, then?


Yes, yes, I concede I'm a sarcastic dick. You're 100% right on that call...but, oddly, it's only one of two instances where you're right for a reason other than indignation** (the other being when you say the world is gray).

**that's not a valid reason. But, hey, good rant, right?

 

[rida]

Rida, you're right. There are a lot of shady experiments, there are a lot of misguided ...screw misguided, downright evil people doing science, for any number of reasons.
You're right...computing power is making bad reasoning easier.
However, if you disclose your data, and your methods, then, if you've been dishonest it will become obvious, won't it?

And...even "good" experiments carry margin of error- it's a computational thing, ultimately. Does that make all experiments bad? No. It makes all of them circumspect, which is the scientific way to look at things, isn't it?

Margin of error is not a bad thing.
Is simply part of the reality of measurements and calculations.

OK. Fine. So the global warming agenda is bunch of crock. Who is this cabal that's manipulating and hiding the truth, by silencing scientists who hold the alternative the world over? Or have I read too may Icke books? (one too many, to be exact)

And I did not said anything about it being right or wrong.
However funding are biased in favor of the prevailing political view. But that is nothing new.

 

[satindesire]

No longer veiled ad hominem. We're making progress.
My black and white belief?
Funny. I seem to have said that religion isn't evil, but misused in my first post. Of course, that's all black.
As a way of understanding the world? Yup. Science wins over superstition 110% of the time. Demonstrable fact.
You don't like that religion is painted black. Fact.
You're not to blame for religion's evils. Fact.
You're not consenting that you made a mistake. My interpretation of what's gone down.
In painting the world gray you don't wanna see religion as evil*. That's my assumption, no longer a fact.

*even in a few isolated instances, to which you have hinted.

You say that it's uncool to attack religion, but you're oddly quiet when people acting on religion's behalf are in the wrong... except for the pope. He's rich. Fuck that guy.

Maybe religion needs to go on a diet, and stop eating fast food, then?


Yes, yes, I concede I'm a sarcastic dick. You're 100% right on that call...but, oddly, it's only one of two instances where you're right for a reason other than indignation** (the other being when you say the world is gray).

**that's not a valid reason. But, hey, good rant, right?

Oddly quiet? So you expect me to believe the way you do, and act the way you do when we see something you don't like?

Funny, isn't that your complaint about religious people?

I'm not oddly quiet just because I don't do the things you do. I disagree with what the Pope stands for. Hence, I am not Catholic. I think that's the absolutely most awesome thing I could ever possibly do to rebel against something I believe is misguided and wrong. I'm not going to make posts on the internet saying the Pope and the Catholic church is XYZ, what I WILL do is I'm not going to practice Catholicism, and that's BETTER, in my opinion. Take that guideline and use it for the rest of my life...When I disagree about something, I DO something about it...and DON'T -DO IT-.

In my opinion, threads like these are an exercise in futility. The believers will continue to believe. The nonbelievers will continue to be nonbelievers. Rants are made, sarcastic dicks are sarcastic dicks, and nothing is solved.

 

[teknight]

Oddly quiet? So you expect me to believe the way you do, and act the way you do when we see something you don't like?

Funny, isn't that your complaint about religious people?

I'm not oddly quiet just because I don't do the things you do. I disagree with what the Pope stands for. Hence, I am not Catholic. I think that's the absolutely most awesome thing I could ever possibly do to rebel against something I believe is misguided and wrong. I'm not going to make posts on the internet saying the Pope and the Catholic church is XYZ, what I WILL do is I'm not going to practice Catholicism, and that's BETTER, in my opinion. Take that guideline and use it for the rest of my life...When I disagree about something, I DO something about it...and DON'T -DO IT-.

You expect the exact same behavior of me. I should lay off religion, 'cause it's immaculate.
I've ALREADY granted you that- religion is not evil.
Here, let me say it again: Religion is not evil. Any evil that takes place where religion is involved, is the fault of humans.
Will you at least chastise those humans?

You came into this crying that religion is being bullied. I'm telling you that the little wimp is the captain of the football team, prom king, and president elect rolled into one. All you're hearing is the minority voicing its opinion. You don't like it. Umm...tough.


My complaint about religious people?
You guys make NO SENSE to me. NONE. Especially when you preach. When you're trying to convince me of the validity of YOUR belief system, which, in all actuality, you probably don't share with the person sitting in the pew next to you.
Believe what you will, but don't cry fowl when your beliefs are questioned. If they are right, and you KNOW THEY ARE, you have NOTHING to lose.

 

[satindesire]

You expect the exact same behavior of me. I should lay off religion, 'cause it's immaculate.
I've ALREADY granted you that- religion is not evil.
Here, let me say it again: Religion is not evil. Any evil that takes place where religion is involved, is the fault of humans.
Will you at least chastise those humans?

You came into this crying that religion is being bullied. I'm telling you that the little wimp is the captain of the football team, prom king, and president elect rolled into one. All you're hearing is the minority voicing its opinion. You don't like it. Umm...tough.

Yes, I absolutely WILL chastise those humans. Anyone who does something evil for any reason gets chastised by me, when I'm made aware of it!

I've met more openly angry atheists or agnostic people on the 'net than openly Christian or religious people, and the vocal majority is certainly, from my experience, the atheists. I sincerely doubt that angry atheists crying that they're being bullied by religion are the minority.

You don't like it?

Tough.

My complaint about religious people?
You guys make NO SENSE to me. NONE. Especially when you preach. When you're trying to convince me of the validity of YOUR belief system, which, in all actuality, you probably don't share with the person sitting in the pew next to you.
Believe what you will, but don't cry fowl when your beliefs are questioned. If they are right, and you KNOW THEY ARE, you have NOTHING to lose.

*shrugs* Uh okay? Since I'm not trying to convince you of ANYTHING, I guess this does not apply to me.

ETA:

BTW: I'm going to go play WoW, so please excuse me if I don't reply for a while.

 

[Stella_Omega]

So do I.

Trust, I fully realize my view about my religion is extremely healthy. I wish more people DID believe the way I did, but if I tried to do that, I'd be no better than anyone else who thinks their way is the only way. It's kind of a weird little thing I've got going on, there.

Deja vu! Now I remember, you've said that before when I talked about Actions. You're a passive Christian. You don't speak up against the Pope, you pretend he doesn't exist. You don't go out and stand against Westboro because then you would be no better than they are. Well, you are certainly doing NOTHING to prove the goodness of your religion. Whereas they are actively showing the world the worst of it.

Sorry, I find that pretty much un-admirable. I really, really do-- especially after someone has said the things that you have said in this convo.

But that's only my opinion.

 

[satindesire]

Deja vu! Now I remember, you've said that before when I talked about Actions. You're a passive Christian. You don't speak up against the Pope, you pretend he doesn't exist. You don't go out and stand against Westboro because then you would be no better than they are. Well, you are certainly doing NOTHING to prove the goodness of your religion. Whereas they are actively showing the world the worst of it.

Sorry, I find that pretty much un-admirable. I really, really do-- especially after someone has said the things that you have said in this convo.

But that's only my opinion.

You're assuming an awful lot of things here....a lot of things that you have absolutely no proof of.

What I do or don't do about what I think is wrong about other people's actions may not be blatantly obvious on this website, but that doesn't mean I'm passive.

I think the idiom that one makes an ass of themselves when they assume is particularly true right now.

If you think I should act the way YOU act because I disagree with XYZ person, that's you acting just as bad as them. Saying I'm a bad person because I don't do/think/say what YOU do/think/say. Don't be a hypocrite.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You're assuming an awful lot of things here....a lot of things that you have absolutely no proof of.

What I do or don't do about what I think is wrong about other people's actions may not be blatantly obvious on this website, but that doesn't mean I'm passive.

I think the idiom that one makes an ass of themselves when they assume is particularly true right now..

you mean the part where you assume that everyone can read the posts you have never made? You're the one who said that, since you don't approve of the pope you don't practice catholicsim. Whoooah. that's spectacular, I would never have thought of such an effective course of action!

And you're the one who says they don't try to talk other Xtians out of assumptions-- even though those assumptions might result in grief and misery for non-christians (And I was pretty specific about the actions that Christians take, and I DO assume you read that)

So,if you DO take action, forgive me my assumption-- I have seen some very specific statements that lead me to it.

If you think I should act the way YOU act because I disagree with XYZ person, that's you acting just as bad as them. Saying I'm a bad person because I don't do/think/say what YOU do/think/say. Don't be a hypocrite.

If you don't act in a way that I admire, must I pretend to admire you?

because that's a hypocrisy that I am not willing to commit.

See, the big difference between my expectations for you and your churche's expectations for me, is-- the best I can do is outline my reasons and hope they appeal to you. I cannot actually force you to do anything.

Your religion, however, can enforce many modes of life upon the unwilling, through the force of righteous fervor. They can covertly pass laws to prevent me from marrying whom I want, just for instance. Or, prevail upon a family to kick their child to the curb, for the same instance.

 

[satindesire]

you mean the part where you assume that everyone can read the posts you have never made? You're the one who said that, since you don't approve of the pope you don't practice catholicsim. Whoooah. that's spectacular, I would never have thought of such an effective course of action!

And you're the one who says they don't try to talk other Xtians out of assumptions-- even though those assumptions might result in grief and misery for non-christians (And I was pretty specific about the actions that Christians take, and I DO assume you read that)

So,if you DO take action, forgive me my assumption-- I have seen some very specific statements that lead me to it.
If you don't act in a way that I admire, must I pretend to admire you?

because that's a hypocrisy that I am not willing to commit.

I didn't bother listing every single thing I do as a Christian because of my beliefs because I didn't think this was a situation that was calling into question my "worth" as a person of faith. I didn't realize that I had to prove to YOU that I was a good Christian by telling YOU of the things I did do to "show the goodness", especially when your own bias would, in my opinion, make that yet another exercise of futility.

I've never run into a person that went to the Westboro Church in order to try and "talk them out of" their misguided actions, and certainly not here on this website so a lack of opportunity does not mean I don't care. I have spoken about it on before, I have called other people that practice my faith out before on their decidedly non-Christian acts, but again, I didn't know you expected me to list those times. It doesn't happen often on this site, but I'm sure if you felt like digging here and on fetlife, and on facebook, youtube, and a number of other forums and sites I'm a part of, you'd find it. But I doubt that would change your mind about the fact that you've apparently convinced yourself of my horribleness.

Be my guest.

I'm not asking you to admire me. What I am asking you to do is stop the pattern of saying things like you know the whole story when you don't. You've got a pattern of doing this since you joined this site, I know for a fact you've done it to me once before.

Just because I use this site for purposes other than complaining about the Pope and the Westboro nutjobs doesn't mean I'm a passive Christian, I don't spend 24/7 on this site nor is it a perfect record of my day to day activities, so you GUESSING about my actions and filling in the blanks with your own preconceived notions, and then trying to imply that I'm some kind of terrible person because of things you've GUESSED AT is pretty cruel.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[YourCaptor]

I like science because it lets me see how the world works, and once I know that I can make the world work better for me. It's great, I loves my plumbing and electricity.

I don't think I need religion though, I have a good sense of morals, and don't require any ethical guidelines. God though, if god is real and powerful, it's a fucked up whatever it is and if I could I would destroy it. If you stand by when you could have helped you are guilty, and god is guilty of every crime, war, natural catastrophe and accident that have ever happened. Insta-death in my book.

 

[eastern sun]

I do see ES's point that as technology advances, new moral questions arise (cloning, stem cell research, genetic discrimination, etc.) and are still in hot debate.

What I don't see is the need to rely on religion or spirituality to find the answer. In fact, because of the myriad of religious and spiritual beliefs there are, seeking the answer from one religion may not necessarily satisfy the members of a different creed.

And furthermore, technological development outstripping spiritual (for me this just reads "moral") progress is the only way it can happen. It's impossible to contemplate and judge the morality of something before it comes into existence... How else would you have it done?

I agree with you, welkin. The polarization of world religions is a significant part of our problem in arriving at common solutions to the various issues we face.

But maybe common solutions are not the goal. Maybe without the diversity of thought that different human belief systems offer, we wouldn't have come this far as a species. Maybe our task on this earth is to find our tribe and fight for its survival. Seen from one perspective, the evidence seems to point to that conclusion.

One of the inherent assumptions in "science" as a belief system is that common truth is knowable and achievable. One concern I've carried in the back of my mind is the possibility that any idea of a single common truth - whether it stems from religion or science - will always marginalize people, create minorities who don't accept or experience that truth, and then potentially become a vehicle for oppression.

 

[teknight]

I agree with you, welkin. The polarization of world religions is a significant part of our problem in arriving at common solutions to the various issues we face.

But maybe common solutions are not the goal. Maybe without the diversity of thought that different human belief systems offer, we wouldn't have come this far as a species. Maybe our task on this earth is to find our tribe and fight for its survival. Seen from one perspective, the evidence seems to point to that conclusion.

One of the inherent assumptions in "science" as a belief system is that common truth is knowable and achievable. One concern I've carried in the back of my mind is the possibility that any idea of a single common truth - whether it stems from religion or science - will always marginalize people, create minorities who don't accept or experience that truth, and then potentially become a vehicle for oppression.

We've gotten this far as a species because we've spread all over the place, thus making it unlikely any one event will destroy all of us. That we can spin pretty little tales about...means NOTHING. Our genes are hard at work regardless or the what the gene bearers believe.

Because claiming the truth is unknowable will bring us together?
Oh! I see. ONE truth will marginalize people. Many truths bring us together?

 

[eastern sun]

What is this spiritual progress of which you speak? I'm fully ignorant of the progression of spirituality. Why must it progress? I thought that spirituality dealt with the absolute, thus making the need for progress obsolete, and downright dangerous, possibly. Please, explain this, as I'm fully ignorant on the subject matter.

Let me try this another way:
You're saying that human beings, some of whom are, for lack of a better word, evil, now have access to more ways to do harm.

Intelligent people aren't dealing with morality? Really? Those bastards!
How about if the stupid people (humanity minus the intelligent people) acted more morally? Or are they absolved of responsibility, 'cause they're dumb? Yes, yes, yes, I'm putting words in your mouth. But grant me that you're making it easy for me to do so.

I was called to bed last night, and gave a very truncated response to these questions you asked, teknight.

I believe that science, as we understand it, is part of a progression of human thought systems and spirituality. Historically, there is a clear dialogue - at times downright argumentative - between different world religions as they come in contact with each other. Science is attempting to create a universal language, independent from cultural biases. And it is a worthy attempt.

But that doesn't mean that the truths embodied in religious systems are inherently false, and therefore should be wholeheartedly rejected. I would think an advocate of science would take a more scientific approach to the question. And that is why I mention "intelligence."

People operate on "blind faith" all the time. And it's good to look into the question of "faith." What are the assumptions that underlie our decisions and actions? Many times I've discovered that I held beliefs based on our collective cultural consciousness that - on further analysis and investigation - just don't hold true.

One of them - for me - was that the belief that all organized religion were inherently intolerant, oppressive and politically motivated. Though it is definitely true in many circumstances - and I have a deep distrust still of organized religions - it has not proved to be universally true, and therefore demands that I reject it as a fundamental assumption.

 

[welkin]

Now the point has shifted from religion's behavior to satindesire's behavior... I think we're a bit off the track here...

That said... my understanding of this thread is:

Atheists: Religious people are imposing their beliefs upon others' lives.
Satindesire: But I don't force other people to believe the same things as I do.

Satindesire, you certainly realize that you, a single person, do not represent religion.
I don't argue with people when they criticize the US for going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't counter with "No, I'm a US citizen and I didn't kill any civilians." and then accuse the other party of committing generalization fallacies.
If whenever we say something about an organization, that statement has to be true for every single individual in that organization, well, what is there left for us to say then?

We hold the US to be accountable for the war, because this is a decision made by the government. The leaders have many rights and responsibilities attached to their offices, and among them is representing their followers.
The same goes with any other organization, including religion.
When the conservative Christians are clamoring to pass anti-homosexual laws, the leaders of the church did not step up and speak otherwise. That to me is their religion condoning their intolerant practices, and even though many Christians may disagree, this is how the entire religion is represented to the others.

One of the merit of democracy is that the people are ultimately responsible for their choice in leaders. If a politician misrepresents his contingency, the people take responsibilities and vote him out. That should also be true with religion. Satindesire, I don't know if you are doing anything in your church to make others more tolerant of non-believers, but until such positive changes actually happen in the church, it will always be held accountable for the image it has allowed itself to be portrayed as, whether that image is one of charity or intolerance.

 

[teknight]

I was called to bed last night, and gave a very truncated response to these questions you asked, teknight.

I believe that science, as we understand it, is part of a progression of human thought systems and spirituality. Historically, there is a clear dialogue - at times downright argumentative - between different world religions as they come in contact with each other. Science is attempting to create a universal language, independent from cultural biases. And it is a worthy attempt.

But that doesn't mean that the truths embodied in religious systems are inherently false, and therefore should be wholeheartedly rejected. I would think an advocate of science would take a more scientific approach to the question. And that is why I mention "intelligence."

People operate on "blind faith" all the time. And it's good to look into the question of "faith." What are the assumptions that underlie our decisions and actions? Many times I've discovered that I held beliefs based on our collective cultural consciousness that - on further analysis and investigation - just don't hold true.

One of them - for me - was that the belief that all organized religion were inherently intolerant, oppressive and politically motivated. Though it is definitely true in many circumstances - and I have a deep distrust still of organized religions - it has not proved to be universally true, and therefore demands that I reject it as a fundamental assumption.

So, religion has argued with religion. Cui bono?

But, religion gets it wrong on one teeny little point:
IT SHOUTS AT THE TOP OF ITS LUNGS THAT IT'S PERFECT KNOWLEDGE WHICH SHOULD NEVER BE QUESTIONED. Now, mind you, even the religious do this, frequently resulting in schisms, divisions, new branches of truth (funny- there is more than one truth, and it's opposed to the others. Hmm... doesn't that mean that the rest of it... is all lies?) How about it strips the pretenses of absoluteness (and thus power) if it wants a fair trial? What? That'd destroy it? So, it is founded on a lie (my words).

Really? You know of major apolitical instances of religion? Where? Who? How big are they? In making moral pronouncements (especially the kind that are painted in bright absolute colors) religion gets political without even having to go to the polls.

Here's the other stupid thing about religion- the insistence that it teaches morality, and is, in fact, the sole holder of morality of any sort. Ummm....no. Human beings are not inherently evil, to need chokers and muzzles, lest their EVIL come out and infect the world. We learn "morality" by the examples of those around us, not their words.

Romanian has a very apt saying: "Do as priest says, not as he does." It points out the inherent hypocrisy in being scholastic about morals.