GF wants me to go to church with her......

[Castiel]

You have neatly illustrated the best reason for the venom - anger at a deception that is dangerous to humanity.


Modern medicine is based on science, so it's based on proven knowledge and results. Doctors spend a minimum of 7 years training and are required to prove their competence, so being a qualified doctor is good evidence of competence. Faith is not required.

As a result of those things, medicine has improved enormously over the last couple of centuries and has been a vast benefit to humanity.

People like you threaten that with your false claims about religion being fundamentally like modern medicine, or science in general. You've taken it a step further and attached religion to "everything else". You're taking the reputation for reliability that science continuously earns and you're attaching religion to it like a parasite, and like most parasites it harms the host and may kill the host.

Religion is at heart simply organised obedience to itself. It is based on faith, i.e. belief without evidence. It opposes the entire concept of proven knowledge and results. It opposes any questioning of itself, sometimes to the point of murdering anyone who does so.

Leeching religion onto medicine, science in general (or "everything else") is a real and serious threat to humanity. That's most obvious when it comes to medicine because it's the most obvious threat to life and health, but it's true for almost everything. For example, religion won't find a way to safely generate electricity in a sustainable way.

Lost the plot much? you pretty much just illustrated everything Freefaller said in his post about sweeping generalisations, not to mention a total misunderstanding of what he actually stated or any understanding of religion...in fact you appear to be equating Science as an alternative to Religion, which is a serious misunderstanding of not only Religion, but also Science.

 

[MowyTone]

wear a Slayer T-shirt

should see you ejected within about 30 seconds

Make that a Deicide T-shirt

 

[Angilion]

I generally think it's better to think the best of people. Put positivity out there and you get it back.

For example if you let someone in when driving, or hold the door open, sure they're just manners, but not necessary, however, that person will undoubtedly then go on to do a nice thing to someone else. Whereas if you cut someone up without apologising, or are aggressive or rude towards someone, that person will then no doubt be in a negative frame of mind which will be passed onto others.

Sure, it's simplistic and not necessarily accurate, but as blind or ignorant as it may be I prefer to think and expect the best out of people rather than assuming they will be nasty pieces of work.

Of course there are people that will have been dealt a rough hand in life, and be negative/aggressive towards you regardless - however, even then that's no excuse to treat them like crap.

I think that's all generally true, but it's not "faith in humanity". There's plenty of evidence for it, therefore it isn't faith.

You might take it into the realms of faith by declaring it to be absolute ("will undoubtably", "will then no doubt be") despite the fact that it's easily proven to not be so. But that's where you move from right to wrong.

 

[Angilion]

Lost the plot much? you pretty much just illustrated everything Freefaller said in his post about sweeping generalisations, not to mention a total misunderstanding of what he actually stated or any understanding of religion.

No, I didn't. If you disagree with me and/or don't understand me, well, there's nothing I can do about that.

 

[Castiel]

I think that's all generally true, but it's not "faith in humanity". There's plenty of evidence for it, therefore it isn't faith.

You might take it into the realms of faith by declaring it to be absolute ("will undoubtably", "will then no doubt be") despite the fact that it's easily proven to not be so. But that's where you move from right to wrong.

I think you are confusing Faith with Blind Faith, which is basically belief without understanding or perception. Faith is a trust based on experience (and personal evidence) whereas Blind Faith is a confidence without experience (or evidence.)

This is what partially Freefaller was talking about with regard generalisations..simply because someone might blindly follow a belief, doesn't mean that all do, equally we put our trust in many things everyday without the objective experience or personal evidence required to take a truly objective and informed decision. We do not truly understand the medicine or the disease for which we are given it for example, but we have faith and trust in those that prescribe it...we have no objective way of being totally sure that the doctor is fully competent or correct, so we have faith in the system which trains and oversees such...sometimes wrongly...in this a trust in Religion is similar...and sometimes misplaced, but not always.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
I can't believe they welcome (ask/tell/demand) you to donate 10% of your wages... Do all churches do this?

Not any more, but it used to be a requirement and it has a long tradition. Wealth is a very good route to power, so churches have sought wealth.

Tithing is the traditional amount, going back at least as far as Judaism and thus incorporated into Christianity from its beginning.

Nowadays, in this country, it's probably usually more about expenses than wealth. Rent, maintainence, wages, etc.

 

[Castiel]

No, I didn't. If you disagree with me and/or don't understand me, well, there's nothing I can do about that.

Yes you did, you made a sweeping generalisation about religion, what Faith is, and the position that Freefaller was making...he wasn't leaching religion onto medicine or science for that matter..those are assumptions you made through your own misunderstanding of the point he was making.

 

[Indie]

burn it, burn it with fire!

 

[413x]

A like to believe what they are told as it's easy
And a lot who say science is absolute really only say that as they have been told it

Obviously no one can understand everything. Being a scientist myself (sigh) I look at things very sceptically. That means both people who flat out deny god and equally those who bang on about it every day.

What I don't want to do is gamble my time away every Sunday and be under silly constraints on the blackmail that I go to heaven. The chance of it being real in my opinion doesn't justify the commitment and sacrifice

Besides I wouldn't want to belong to an organisation where I had todo X y and z to get in. I would hope if there was a god you could just get in by living life I the way you think is right.

I also think that if some religions say you must only follow ours, and all are equally weighted as being correct then following one over the other is another gamble!

All this and me wanting to generally be a decent person means I do not believein any ttraditional religion, don't like it when views are consciously in forced on children but also respect that generally religion hopefully aims to make you a better person judged by what we regard as right

Unfortunately organised religion was created by people, and run by people. And often people who want power. It also gives people who have nothing hope. That alone is a good thing, but the power play that goes with it is what causes the problems

All that said.. I would probably call this one quits, what will happen if you want kids? Could you deal with the religious upbringing? (if that is what would happen)
Churches like this I cannot deal with.

 

[smelly_legend]

Do what old people seem to do and go to them all when you're older to hedge your bets.

 

[Castiel]

Not any more, but it used to be a requirement and it has a long tradition. Wealth is a very good route to power, so churches have sought wealth.

Tithing is the traditional amount, going back at least as far as Judaism and thus incorporated into Christianity from its beginning.

Nowadays, in this country, it's probably usually more about expenses than wealth. Rent, maintainence, wages, etc.

Again, another misrepresentation of what Traditional Tithing actually was intended for...the Tithe in regard to Religion (Judaism is the example you used) was a practice of giving 10% of your income to Charitable Causes...the New Testament is similar in this, without the compulsion in Judaism however and generally supporting the charitable work of the Church to which the person was a parishioner or was the equivalent of a Land-Tax placed on workers of Church Land, which was compulsory, but the latter was introduced by the State in most examples.

It was also a tax (for several things, including fighting in the Levant) levied by non-Church landowners and by Royal Proxy.

In other countries there remains a Church Tax..levied generally by the State against members of specific religions rather than by the Religious Organisations themselves...also some Religious Organisations levy compulsory membership fees but generally mainstream Christian Churches do not, they rely upon totally voluntary donations, not tithes.

 

[Freefaller]

Yes you did, you made a sweeping generalisation about religion, what Faith is, and the position that Freefaller was making...he wasn't leaching religion onto medicine or science for that matter..those are assumptions you made through your own misunderstanding of the point he was making.

I've come to the conclusion in previous discussions that Angilion either doesn't get me or doesn't like me or just doesn't understand me. We often end up talking at cross purposes so tend not to pursue discussions with him as I don't want to a) wind him up b) wind myself up c) cause undue stress over something very trivial.

 

[Angilion]

I think you are confusing Faith with Blind Faith, which is basically belief without understanding or perception. Faith is a trust based on experience (and personal evidence) whereas Blind Faith is a confidence without experience (or evidence.)

This is what partially Freefaller was talking about with regard generalisations..simply because someone might blindly follow a belief, doesn't mean that all do, equally we put our trust in many things everyday without the objective experience or personal evidence required to take a truly objective and informed decision. We do not truly understand the medicine or the disease for which we are given it for example, but we have faith and trust in those that prescribe it...we have no objective way of being totally sure that the doctor is fully competent or correct, so we have faith in the system which trains and oversees such...sometimes wrongly...in this a trust in Religion is similar...and sometimes misplaced, but not always.

You're doing the same thing - wrongly equating religion with science (and medicine) in order to attach some of the earned reputation of science and medicine to religion. Leeching.

Science and medicine are both at least supposed to be based on objective evidence and to be testable and falsifiable. It's not a perfect system because people are involved, but it also contains strong self-correcting mechanisms. Science has peer review and open season on any published work and is generally based on the idea that anyone is free to prove anything wrong. Medicine has a basis in science. It's more prone to being biased by the amount of money involved, but that is offset to some extent by the requirement for extensive training and testing before someone is allowed to be a doctor.

Religion is untestable, unfalsifiable, has no objective evidence and no requirement for any evidence at all, not even anecdotes. Challenges are limited to interpretations of stories written by people, usually far in the past and usually written after many years of being spoken, passed from person to person and probably changed.

To claim that they are the same sort of thing is sophistry at best and outright deception at worst.

 

[arknor]

wear a Slayer T-shirt

should see you ejected within about 30 seconds

 

[Castiel]

You're doing the same thing - wrongly equating religion with science (and medicine) in order to attach some of the earned reputation of science and medicine to religion. Leeching.

Actually I am doing nothing of the sort. I (and Freefaller) am talking about the Trust and Confidence we put in things we don't always understand or have experience of...whether it be religion, science or any other thing, I am not equating religion with anything, or science with anything, they are not the same, nor should they be treated as such...I am just pointing out that the way most people approach how they accept the positions of each is similar..as a layman in either trusts those who are expert in each... the Parishioner puts his trust in his Priest, the Patient puts his trust in his Doctor, this doesn't mean that one is equated with the other in any practical sense or that one is attached to the other, either by reputation, similarity or otherwise...both the Priest and the Doctor are totally immaterial to the point and by association so are Religion and Science.

You accuse people of sophistry and deception..basically calling Freefaller and I some form of liar...when you don't even understand the point being made, as simple as it is.

 

[Castiel]

I've come to the conclusion in previous discussions that Angilion either doesn't get me or doesn't like me or just doesn't understand me. We often end up talking at cross purposes so tend not to pursue discussions with him as I don't want to a) wind him up b) wind myself up c) cause undue stress over something very trivial.

I think Angillion has issues of his own tbh...he clearly has difficulty understanding the point being made so has invented an argument of his own. You are right, it seems best just to leave him to his misconceptions and opinions.

 

[hurfdurf]

You're doing the same thing - wrongly equating religion with science (and medicine) in order to attach some of the earned reputation of science and medicine to religion. Leeching.

Science and medicine are both at least supposed to be based on objective evidence and to be testable and falsifiable. It's not a perfect system because people are involved, but it also contains strong self-correcting mechanisms. Science has peer review and open season on any published work and is generally based on the idea that anyone is free to prove anything wrong. Medicine has a basis in science. It's more prone to being biased by the amount of money involved, but that is offset to some extent by the requirement for extensive training and testing before someone is allowed to be a doctor.

Religion is untestable, unfalsifiable, has no objective evidence and no requirement for any evidence at all, not even anecdotes. Challenges are limited to interpretations of stories written by people, usually far in the past and usually written after many years of being spoken, passed from person to person and probably changed.

To claim that they are the same sort of thing is sophistry at best and outright deception at worst.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

So odious. Nice comic

 

[hurfdurf]

Science comes up with a theory, then tries to challenge itself time and time again to improve its theory and modify it if necessary, religion doesn't. It starts with faith and then attempts to ignore anything that challenges that faith up until it is forced to change it for PR purposes. If we left the Churchs in charge and we never questioned them, science would be so stifled and we would still be living in the dark ages, with the religious people backing the torture and execution of those who questioned the faith. There is a massive difference between religion and science.

 

[Castiel]

So odious. Nice comic

There is a massive difference between religion and science.

So neither you nor Hurfdurf understand the point being made here by either Freefaller or myself ...IT IS NOT A LITERAL COMPARISON OF SCIENCE WITH RELIGION, but of the attitudes of how people accept things based on trust of others and not their own objective knowledge or understanding. No one said religion is the same a science..that was Angillions misunderstanding, nothing more.

Can we be any clearer than that.

The irony of one group accusing others of deception, disingenuity and prejudice while they are basically doing the same astounds me tbh...