CommieGIR posted:So, yes, you acknowledge science has nothing to do with religion regardless of the religion of the scientist. Got it. Does this mean you understand that Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive? Are you even capable of admitting you were wrong? Who What Now posted:This is a really nice sounding and trite little platitude but science and religion are mutually exclusive because one deals with a materialistic universe, assessing probabilities, and making predictions and the other deals with the ephemeral and makes only proclamations. Who What Now, this is the statement I take issues with. I'm not putting words in your mouth when I said that Religion has absolutely no problems with the other and Religion does not "make only proclamations"
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Antimatter, moron. That's not actually what antimatter is.  down with slavery posted:I've already posted at length about my issues with materialism as an ideology in this thread, and as I said previously, I'm happy to defend the ideas elsewhere because this really isn't the thread to dive into metaphysics, which is where we're heading. Fair enough, although I'd be willing to defend my position. down with slavery posted:Again, I didn't understand what you meant by "materialistic". I told you I made a mistake and was wrong. What words did I add to your claim exactly? That atheism is necessarily materialistic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Probably not, because you'll redefine God to mean whatever you want in order to "win" the argument. You said that any real theologian has 'moved passed that point', which I rather doubt is true (and is also a fallacious broad brush statement, but whatever). Also, do you have examples of religions with no central deities?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:That's not actually what antimatter is. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:That's not actually what antimatter is. Exactly. Learn to take a joke, homestuck worshipper.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:28
|
|
Who What Now posted:That atheism is necessarily materialistic. Perhaps you'd like to point out where I said that? I actually claimed the opposite, I'm an atheist who isn't a materialist... so? The Ender posted:You said that any real theologian has 'moved passed that point', which I rather doubt is true (and is also a fallacious broad brush statement, but whatever). Any theologian worth listening to imo. quote:Also, do you have examples of religions with no central deities? There are sects of pretty much every major religion(they are generally small, but they exist) but I think Taoism and Buddhism is where you're going to find most of it.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Who What Now, this is the statement I take issues with. I'm not putting words in your mouth when I said that Religion has absolutely no problems with the other and Religion does not "make only proclamations" Religion by itself can only make proclamations, though. Religious people can use science to test and make predictions, and the religion can change to incorporate that information to survive in a better educated world, but religion did not take part in the scientific process, it merely reacted to it. Oil(religion) may float on top of water(science), and will even rise when more water is added, but the two never mix.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
I dunno. Orthodox Jews are pretty easy to troll. All you have to do is type 'Yahweh' over and over and their heads explode.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Its weird how atheists are always the ones who are super uptight and serious in these threads. Its no nonsense all the time- chomping at the bit to lay some pwnage down on the simple minded.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:30
|
|
Who What Now posted:Religion by itself can only make proclamations, though. Religious people can use science to test and make predictions, and the religion can change to incorporate that information to survive in a better educated world, but religion did not take part in the scientific process, it merely reacted to it. Again, this is just wrong. The institution of Religion has been a major player in the scientific process many times. Religion is inclusive of science, no matter how many times you scream and stamp your feet. Miltank posted:Its weird how atheists are always the ones who are super uptight and serious in these threads. Its no nonsense all the time- chomping at the bit to lay some pwnage down on the simple minded. The thing that kills me is that I am an atheist and they're so worked up they have to fight the statement "science and religion aren't mutually exclusive" to the death when it's about the least contentious point I could make.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
The fact that people can get degrees in theology is like the idea that people can get degrees in anime. It's really hilarious. No one has actually argued against how much more efficient it is to worship the accumulation of wealth than to worship some jackass staring in an ant farm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Exactly. Learn to take a joke, homestuck worshipper. "A joke in response to a joke?! Preposterous!"-Fishmech down with slavery posted:Perhaps you'd like to point out where I said that? I actually claimed the opposite, I'm an atheist who isn't a materialist... so? I suppose I was confused by your non-sequitur then, because it clearly looked like you were implying that I said atheism was a necessary component of materialism. You have a very bad habit of equating things you shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
quote:There are sects of pretty much every major religion(they are generally small, but they exist) but I think Taoism and Buddhism is where you're going to find most of it. Have you ever studied either Taoism or Buddhism? I mean, the names of the central deities are right there in the titles of the religions (Buddha is an anthro figure like Jesus, Tao / Dao / Te is a nebulous deity & spiritual concept like God or the Holy Spirit).
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:34
|
|
Who What Now posted:I suppose I was confused by your non-sequitur then, because it clearly looked like you were implying that I said atheism was a necessary component of materialism. You have a very bad habit of equating things you shouldn't. Hmm, so you're confused and I'm the one who has a bad habit of equating things? I didn't equate anything, you did. I'm sorry but if lack the intellectual capacity to keep up with what I'm saying, please don't accuse me of putting words in your mouth, especially when I've explicitly written the exact opposite not four posts ago.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Again, this is just wrong. The institution of Religion has been a major player in the scientific process many times. Religion is inclusive of science, no matter how many times you scream and stamp your feet. Religious people, yes. Religion, no. And no matter how big of a temper-tantrum or how many times you call us big doody heads for pointing out the distinction to you will change that. Sorry, sport.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:36
|
|
The Ender posted:Have you ever studied either Taoism or Buddhism? I mean, the names of the central deities are right there in the titles of the religions (Buddha is an anthro figure like Jesus, Tao / Dao / Te is a nebulous deity & spiritual concept like God or the Holy Spirit). That is not what Tao means. Like I said, you'll stretch to turn whatever into "God" but here, have some light reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao Who What Now posted:Religious people, yes. Religion, no. And no matter how big of a temper-tantrum or how many times you call us big doody heads for pointing out the distinction to you will change that. Sorry, sport. What about Religious organizations that fund scientific experiments? Do you understand that the institution of "Religion" is absolutely massive and you're painting with a giant brush?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
The Ender posted:Have you ever studied either Taoism or Buddhism? I mean, the names of the central deities are right there in the titles of the religions (Buddha is an anthro figure like Jesus, Tao / Dao / Te is a nebulous deity & spiritual concept like God or the Holy Spirit). There are several Buddhists sects that maintain that Buddah was only a man who reached true enlightenment, and who is someone to be respected and emulated, but had no supernatural or otherworldly powers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:"A joke in response to a joke?! Preposterous!"-Fishmech Your entire life is not a response to this thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Its weird how atheists are always the ones who are super uptight and serious in these threads. Its no nonsense all the time- chomping at the bit to lay some pwnage down on the simple minded. Yeah, all posting messages on a message board and poo poo. Bunch of losers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:"A joke in response to a joke?! Preposterous!"-Fishmech What kind of joke was that? this is a comedy website dude, at least take a swing at it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I'm sorry but if lack the intellectual capacity to keep up with what I'm saying, Says the poster who didn't understand what materialistic meant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:What about Religious organizations that fund scientific experiments? Do you understand that the institution of "Religion" is absolutely massive and you're painting with a giant brush? Doesn't make their theology any more important to the research other than the dollars that funded the study. That's about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:39
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Doesn't make their theology any more important to the research other than the dollars that funded the study. That's about it. What is your point? Mine is that Religion is involved in Science and therefore Science is not exclusive from Religion, bringing me back to my original point, Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive. Did you enjoy the ride? Who What Now posted:Says the poster who didn't understand what materialistic meant. Hey at least I had the balls to admit it. Part of debate and discussion means actually accepting that you don't have all the answers some times. You're the one accusing me of saying things when I said the complete opposite.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:What about Religious organizations that fund scientific experiments? Do you understand that the institution of "Religion" is absolutely massive and you're painting with a giant brush? What about them? Contributing money to scientific endeavors does not make one a scientist any more than donating to the Red Cross makes one a doctor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
quote:That is not what Tao means. Like I said, you'll stretch to turn whatever into "God" but here, have some light reading: quote:"the One, which is natural, spontaneous, eternal, nameless, and indescribable. It is at once the beginning of all things and the way in which all things pursue their course." But whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:What is your point? Mine is that Religion is involved in Science and therefore Science is not exclusive from Religion, bringing me back to my original point, Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive. Did you enjoy the ride? Because the religion of the individual or entity donating money to a scientific endeavor has no bearing on the end product. The Ender posted:But whatever. So does that make Taoism like Agnosticism?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:41
|
|
The Ender posted:But whatever. Yes, there are multiple ways to interpret the concept. Note that you had to go to the article on Taoism and take the summary paragraph on Tao instead of using the article on Tao that I provided you which has a more much nuanced view. It really sucks that you guys are more interested in winning arguments than actually having an interesting discussion. CommieGIR posted:Because the religion of the individual or entity donating money to a scientific endeavor has no bearing on the end product. Religion is a social institution, not an attribute on a D&D character sheet
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Because the religion of the individual or entity donating money to a scientific endeavor has no bearing on the end product. The essence of Tao is not meaningfully different from God, or Thetans, or The Force, or any other hardly-coherent supernatural concept that is supposedly the true core of the universe that can only be perceived by those who worship the exclusive codifications long enough. I feel it's worth mentioning that Taoist boxers during the boxer rebellion thought that honing their bodies to this great universal energy would render them immune to western weaponry / bullets. It didn't turn out so well for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Because the religion of the individual or entity donating money to a scientific endeavor has no bearing on the end product. This is a really strange to say considering say, the results from mormon "archaelogists" especially before the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This is a really strange to say considering say, the results from mormon "archaelogists" especially before the 80s. Most of that was twisting actual archaeological finds into "You see, this supports our claims" instead of conducting actual archaeology with that express purpose. You had the NWAF established by BYU to try to 'prove the Book of Mormon over and over, although their actual finds were found to be useful to normal archeology, but not their claims. To that end, its still just as highly controversial as Biblical Archaeology. At the same time, you still have a lot of religious institutions doing the same thing with digs in Israel/Palestine and other Middle Eastern states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Nov 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Its weird how atheists are always the ones who are super uptight and serious in these threads. Its no nonsense all the time- chomping at the bit to lay some pwnage down on the simple minded. Click the "?" under my name and get a load of all the seriousness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Its weird how atheists are always the ones who are super uptight and serious in these threads. Its no nonsense all the time- chomping at the bit to lay some pwnage down on the simple minded. I have never once been serious in this thread. You seem to have a serious problem with atheists, would you like to talk about it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Click the "?" under my name and get a load of all the seriousness. I had this idea first, back of jerk! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Most of that was twisting actual archaeological finds into "You see, this supports our claims" instead of conducting actual archaeology with that express purpose You had the NWAF established by BYU to try to 'prove the Book of Mormon over and over. To that end, its still just as highly controversial as Biblical Archaeology. Didnn't the Mormons end-up either inadvertently or intentionally destroying a bunch of mummified remains in their pursuit to 'prove' the American heritage of Jesus?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
The Ender posted:Didnn't the Mormons end-up either inadvertently or intentionally destroying a bunch of mummified remains in their pursuit to 'prove' the American heritage of Jesus? I had not heard that, but not outside the realm of possibilities. I know a couple Muslim holy sites and burial sites were destroyed by Biblical Archaeologists to reach the tombs and graves of Christians underneath.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Click the "?" under my name and get a load of all the seriousness. I did it. Now hang on a drat minute: quote:people who believe that Teresa was anything other than a death fetishist who felt a thrill in her clitoris when a starving old man checked out looking into her eyes. But she was so famous! You take that back! Theresa was a legit good thief. It wasn't just all talk. EDIT: I mean, sure, running a sham orphanage organization isn't that big a deal. Even the most amateur of con artists could do that, especially with the backing of the RCC. But the girl deserves some credit for being able to scam the Savings & Loans scammers out of their coin and then just smiling and waving as they got hauled off to jail and she pocketed the funds. poo poo was smooth. The Ender fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Nov 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Wow kyrie seems insane. Get help dude
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
People bitch when we make jokes about religion and then they bitch when we don't. Can't win, I tells ya.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
The Ender posted:I feel it's worth mentioning that Taoist boxers during the boxer rebellion thought that honing their bodies to this great universal energy would render them immune to western weaponry / bullets. Do you think those opposing forces are correct? If so, is it because of their adherence to a materialistic viewpoint, or is it purely because they were more powerful?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
The Ender posted:I did it. Now hang on a drat minute: conceded
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 06:41
|
|