Will God accept you if you renounce religion?

[Glaucus]

Give me your personal view about religion on what you believe please.

Main stream religions are story's handed down as folk lore, embellished stories, explained with the evidence at the time. Most of the major stories in all religions/cultures pre date these writings by thousands of years and all remarkably similar.

I do think thre were huge floods, end of ice age is one hypothesis, black sea flooding is another, although wouldn't explain the similarity stories around the globe.

However I'm not religious, I don't have a spiritual bone in my body.
my mum is religion, so she taught me a fair bit, dad doesn't believe in anything, and certain aspects of religion interest me greatly. Especially the commonality around the world and the incredibly similar stories that pre date these scriptures by thousands of years, I see the bible as a historical master piece, that people dismiss far to readily as they somehow think if they believe in a flood they suddenly have to believe in a God, which off course is utter nonsense.

 

[Glaucus]

Oh, I get it. So, when religious organisations and people try to suppress science, they are doing it for non-religious reasons, and somehow that means that 'religion doesn't suppress science'? Your logic is impeccable.

So I can dismiss all politics as evil as they have implemented so many evil acts, or is it human nature and using politics as a war cry? Or as politics isn't religion, you let them off?

 

[Naffa]

So I can dismiss all politics as evil as they have implemented so many evil acts, or is it human nature and using politics as a war cry? Or as politics isn't religion, you let them off?

Oh, god... What are you talking about? I'm actually going to choose not to reply to that as it would be pointless.

 

[Spook187]

Main stream religions are story's handed down as folk lore, embellished stories, explained with the evidence at the time. Most of the major stories in all religions/cultures pre date these writings by thousands of years and all remarkably similar.

I do think thre were huge floods, end of ice age is one hypothesis, black sea flooding is another, although wouldn't explain the similarity stories around the globe.

However I'm not religious, I don't have a spiritual bone in my body.
my mum is religion, so she taught me a fair bit, and certain aspects of religion interest me greatly. Especially the commonality around the world and the incredibly similar stories that pre date these scriptures b thousands of years, I see the bible as a historical master piece, that people dismiss far to readily as they somehow thing if they believe in a flood they suddenly have to believe in a God, which off course is utter nonsense.

Cheers for that, it's like the shroud on what we meant to believe, i support the carbon dating theory and even as they say could be a few hundred years out, it still stands short of the time it's supposed to be, so i conclude it's a fake a very good fake, just like the bible very clever in what it does but i just don't get it.
I often fall very short in these debates due my lack of knowledge in these things, but i say what i believe in if rather short text.
What i do have an interest in is Astronomy and i don't like it when religion clashes with my love of the cosmos, i simply do not believe there is or has ever been a higher entity or whatever you call it doing these things in the universe that defines religion, it's pure science to me.

 

[Glaucus]

Oh, god... What are you talking about? I'm actually going to choose not to reply to that as it would be pointless.

Is that s. you can't reconcile the two sides.
Dow it say in politic you have to go to war? Or was it just named on politics for underlying reasons such as land grabbing?

Which is it do you hate politics and religion?
Or do you look at the underlying reasons then see what actually happened then make up our mind, if it was scripture leading to that path, or another reason. Again I suggest you read up on Gallieo.

You might be interested in this, a Cambridge university. Lecture on myths and truths in science and religion. A historical perspective.
http://downloads.sms.cam.ac.uk/1208840/1208844.m4v

I'm just watching it ATM.

 

[Castiel]

The ban on federal funding for stem cell research was argued on expressly religious grounds.

No it wasn't. It was argued on ethical grounds, predominantly by pro-life groups (which included, but were not limited to religious organisations). And the opposition is limited to embryonic stem cell research, not stem cell research in general. The pro-lobby also includes both secular and religious organisations.

 

[Castiel]

Well, thanks for making my point. Religion does indeed suppress science, so making the blanket assertion that it does not is incorrect. That's the only point I was making.

The blanket statement that Religion suppresses science is therefore equally incorrect. The fact is that Glaucus was not making that kind of isolated statement, as I explained it is a truth but not the truth, which is far more complex than a single soundbite....as you well know. As I said the Conflict Thesis is something widely dismissed today, the relationship between Science and Religion is a complex one and examples like Scopes and Galileo are the exception and not the rule.

 

[Naffa]

No it wasn't. It was argued on ethical grounds, predominantly by pro-life groups (which included, but were not limited to religious organisations). And the opposition is limited to embryonic stem cell research, not stem cell research in general. The pro-lobby also includes both secular and religious organisations.

Sure, some pro-lifers are secular (Hitch for one), but the way that the Bush administration justified the ban, 'the sanctity of human life', etc, blah blah. That doesn't mean that there isn't a secular argument against it, etc, blah blah.

The blanket statement that Religion suppresses science is therefore equally incorrect.

So, you interpreted what I said as me saying that all religion suppresses all science, all the time? Extraordinary.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
I do think thre were huge floods, end of ice age is one hypothesis, black sea flooding is another, although wouldn't explain the similarity stories around the globe.
[..]

Flooding has always been a common problem for many people in many parts of the world, especially in agrarian societies (i.e. everywhere until relatively recently). The effects are similar wherever you are and the people are much the same wherever you are, so it's not surprising to find similarities in ancient stories of flooding, stories shaped by many generations of retelling. "Huge" to a neolithic farmer is a very different scale to "huge" today.

 

[Glaucus]

Flooding has always been a common problem for many people in many parts of the world, especially in agrarian societies (i.e. everywhere until relatively recently). The effects are similar wherever you are and the people are much the same wherever you are, so it's not surprising to find similarities in ancient stories of flooding, stories shaped by many generations of retelling. "Huge" to a neolithic farmer is a very different scale to "huge" today.

I'm not sure what your point is?
Of course huge is difference for a start saying the entire world was flooded is likely to mean their known world. But there is evidence for millions of square km in specific regions to of been flooded in a devasting flood.

 

[Castiel]

Sure, some pro-lifers are secular (Hitch for one), but the way that the Bush administration justified the ban, 'the sanctity of human life', etc, blah blah. That doesn't mean that there isn't a secular argument against it, etc, blah blah.

The sanctity of human life is not expressly religious, it is a range of ethical and moral viewpoints shared by a wide range of people of all kinds of backgrounds. The argument against is also not limited to a secular one, but includes positions from a wide range of viewpoints also, including religious ones...such as Judaism.

So, you interpreted what I said as me saying that all religion suppresses all science, all the time? Extraordinary.

That was not my intention... I took it in the context in which it appeared to be made...and explained that Glaucus was not making a blanket statement, but illustrating that religion suppressing science is a fallacy. It no more suppresses Science than Science suppresses itself..to clarify it sometimes finds itself (either through political or ethical considerations) to be in conflict with a particular piece or section of research (such as Embryonic Stem Cell Research), as do various other organisations and groups, both secular and otherwise, but it doesn't suppress science in the general context that you appear to be advocating, quite the opposite, on balance religion supports and promote scientific and educational endeavour, possibly more than any other single organisation has, historically and to arguably a lesser degree contemporarily and examples of anti-intellectualism within the Church are largely driven by political and personal reasons rather than purely religious ones, as Galileo and Scopes illustrate.

 

[Angilion]

Cheers for that, it's like the shroud on what we meant to believe, i support the carbon dating theory and even as they say could be a few hundred years out, it still stands short of the time it's supposed to be, so i conclude it's a fake a very good fake [..]

There has been a genuine challenge to the dating. Or, more accurately, the sampling. They agree that the carbon dating was done correctly and that the sample tested was therefore late medieval, dating from shortly before the shroud was first displayed. The hypothesis put forward is that the shroud was repaired shortly before being displayed and that the Vatican cut the sample from a repair and not from the original material of the shroud. A really expert repair would have been difficult to detect when it was new, let alone 700 years later. Their paper passed peer review - it's not just denial of evidence as a matter of faith.

Either explanation (fake or repaired) seems possible to me. There were no end of fake religious artefacts at the time, due to the amount of wealth and power involved (they attracted people who donated money to whatever place had them). The shroud attracted lots of money (and therefore power) to the newly built church that had it. That's plenty of motive for fakery, but it's also plenty of motive for repair because the apparent lack of decay would have in those days convinced more people that it was genuine - the holiness of the Christ had rendered the cloth incorruptible!

The Vatican has refused permission for further testing, so it's still not entirely certain.

 

[m4rk84]

I believe that religion is an indisputable blemish on human progression that has stifled the development of our race for far too long. Hypothetically speaking if there were any alien species that had been monitoring and watching our progression from perhaps light years away I'm sure their neutral opinion would be the same.

I really struggle with lots of arguments put forth in the thread like how we owe religion for our culture? or perhaps moral values?

Moral values I believe are engrained into our very nature from birth, their inclusion in religion is simply a tool to help us relate to religion in order for them to push their propaganda. I personally believe that for every magnificent religiously inspired structure on the globe their would be an equally grand (or perhaps more so) structure if religion were to have never existed. We don't owe religion for any of these things, both would have existed regardless however in a much different and arguably better form.

Even when religion is used for good it's nothing more then a little white lie to inspire good in people that should and would be there anyway. In it's worst form it's a lie used for control and war.

 

[Castiel]

There has been a genuine challenge to the dating. Or, more accurately, the sampling. They agree that the carbon dating was done correctly and that the sample tested was therefore late medieval, dating from shortly before the shroud was first displayed. The hypothesis put forward is that the shroud was repaired shortly before being displayed and that the Vatican cut the sample from a repair and not from the original material of the shroud. A really expert repair would have been difficult to detect when it was new, let alone 700 years later. Their paper passed peer review - it's not just denial of evidence as a matter of faith.

Either explanation (fake or repaired) seems possible to me. There were no end of fake religious artefacts at the time, due to the amount of wealth and power involved (they attracted people who donated money to whatever place had them). The shroud attracted lots of money (and therefore power) to the newly built church that had it. That's plenty of motive for fakery, but it's also plenty of motive for repair because the apparent lack of decay would have in those days convinced more people that it was genuine - the holiness of the Christ had rendered the cloth incorruptible!

The Vatican has refused permission for further testing, so it's still not entirely certain.

The Catholic Church has never officially endorsed the Shroud of Turin. Pope John Paul II stated "Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions. She entrusts to scientists the task of continuing to investigate, so that satisfactory answers may be found to the questions connected with this Sheet"

 

[Cleeecooo]

Einstein: "Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind"

That somewhat relates to the idea that science and religion can go hand in hand. Stupid people stop science progressing with their ignorant/NIMBY views, religion itself does not.

 

[m4rk84]

Einstein: "Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind"

That somewhat relates to the idea that science and religion can go hand in hand. Stupid people stop science progressing with their ignorant/NIMBY views, religion itself does not.

Even a great man such as Einstein himself can be misquoted or wrong about some things.

How can something based on lies serve any purpose in Science except denying it?

 

[Cleeecooo]

Even a great man such as Einstein himself can be misquoted or wrong about some things.

How can something based on lies serve any purpose in Science except denying it?

Religion an help point science in the right direction and/or raise questions that science than answers.

 

[StriderX]

I think every single Einstein quote has been butchered for anyone's bias.

Just stop using it, honestly.

 

[Freakbro]

Neither of those you mentioned are cults. They don't meet the criteria which involves controlling various aspects of your life.

Jehovah's Witnesses belong to a cult.

You serious?

I came across this definition the other day that made me chuckle...

"Cult: a small unpopular religion.
Religion: a large popular cult."

And have a joke for the day :

A rabbi, a lawyer, and a priest are on the Titanic. They rush to the lifeboat and as they get in, the rabbi says: 'What about the children?' The lawyer says: 'Screw the children!' The preist says: 'Do you think we have time?'

 

[spoffle]

So ... what you are saying is .... Science can never advance itself?



Back to not making sense. God is, allegedly all powerful. That would mean he can do anything he wants. As soon as you say "except..." the all powerful bit goes out the window.

I am not against people being religious, so long as it doesn't infringe on peoples rights, or basically doesn't make sense.

All powerful, nope just shown that.
All loving, yet allows so many to be hurt in life and the afterlife.

You are trying to argue concepts that you have no understanding of, and because of your lack of understanding, you think you're right in what you're saying.