LittleFranklin wrote:God put all that science stuff here to test us. EDIT: Wait are you calling science a religion?
revelthedog wrote:Every 'religion' is based on trying to prove the previous one was a load of nonsense. Science is the most interesting one so far, as its getting us back to being very interactive with what we believe in.
Â
The most passionate religious people I've ever spoken to are the atheists. If religion is based around belief then their God is a powerful one.
(1)Religion was formed to bring people together. In essence it was way to bring about simple laws in society.
Its about a sense of community. But as I say, I do believe. (2)Once you understand who the first people were to write down the bible story, the rest of it becomes very simple to explain.
it was never meant to be a set text, it was meant to be a spoken message that evolved as its people did.
revelthedog wrote:It relies on faith as much as any religion.
Facewon wrote:huh? Science as a "religion" is a lazy trope and if your only reason for calling it a "religion" is that you think lots of people have too much "faith" in it then try harder. (forgive bold, editing is giving me some grief here)revelthedog wrote:Every 'religion' is based on trying to prove the previous one was a load of nonsense. Science is the most interesting one so far, as its getting us back to being very interactive with what we believe in. ÂAgain, you're being lazy with the words there. Is atheism now a religion? Are we seriously going to have this discussion? If their "religion" is based around well justified belief then yeah, I reckon reason is pretty powerful. (Awesome, I can mix up words and make slightly ambiguous points too.)The most passionate religious people I've ever spoken to are the atheists. If religion is based around belief then their God is a powerful one.1. By violently segregating believers from non believers? 2. I suspect we're reading that sentence in very different lights.(1)Religion was formed to bring people together. In essence it was way to bring about simple laws in society. Its about a sense of community. But as I say, I do believe. (2)Once you understand who the first people were to write down the bible story, the rest of it becomes very simple to explain.Says who? Forgive formatting of this post. multi quoting learner on this forum. Anyhoo, that may read quite harshly, sorry. But, as nice as it all sounds - and I have no doubt you're a sound chap, revel, and of a religious slant that's pretty darn tolerant and lets people get on with their lives and all - the constant mention of religion being about god/bringing people together/love and the pseudo history where it was all nice and pure and then got corrupted doesn't actually make sense in light of the facts, and seems, from where I'm sitting, to be just a post hoc rationalisation because it makes you feel better. And that "you" can be a general one, because I don't want to pick on you here, and I don't think you're the first to have made some of the above points. Must sleep.it was never meant to be a set text, it was meant to be a spoken message that evolved as its people did.
Facewon wrote:No it doesn't. That's precisely what it DOESN'T do. ffs.revelthedog wrote:It relies on faith as much as any religion.
You need to invest in a dictionary, so you can learn the meanings of the words you are (ab)using.revelthedog wrote:It does. It relies on theories.Facewon wrote:No it doesn't. That's precisely what it DOESN'T do. ffs.revelthedog wrote:It relies on faith as much as any religion.
revelthedog wrote:Facewon wrote:No it doesn't. That's precisely what it DOESN'T do. ffs.revelthedog wrote:It relies on faith as much as any religion.
It does. It relies on theories.
Yeah, that's fair enough. Â I hope that Face isn't annoyed that he doesn't sleep properly.Hulka T wrote:I think you may be confusing 'theory' with 'scientific theory', as opposed to hypothesisrevelthedog wrote:It does. It relies on theories.Facewon wrote:No it doesn't. That's precisely what it DOESN'T do. ffs.revelthedog wrote:It relies on faith as much as any religion.
djchump wrote:You need to invest in a dictionary, so you can learn the meanings of the words you are (ab)using.revelthedog wrote:It does. It relies on theories.Facewon wrote:No it doesn't. That's precisely what it DOESN'T do. ffs.revelthedog wrote:It relies on faith as much as any religion.
Skerret wrote:Did you ever see the old god thread? Â He'll sleep like a baby.
Well no, if you use words incorrectly, that makes you wrong. There's no perspectivism there.revelthedog wrote:He really gets a bit - passionate about these things. Â Though I am entitled to my own thoughts and opinions. Doesn't make either of us wrong or right.Skerret wrote:Did you ever see the old god thread? Â He'll sleep like a baby.
djchump wrote:Well no, if you use words incorrectly, that makes you wrong. There's no perspectivism there.revelthedog wrote:He really gets a bit - passionate about these things. Â Though I am entitled to my own thoughts and opinions. Doesn't make either of us wrong or right.Skerret wrote:Did you ever see the old god thread? Â He'll sleep like a baby.
revelthedog wrote:like what?djchump wrote:Well no, if you use words incorrectly, that makes you wrong. There's no perspectivism there.revelthedog wrote:He really gets a bit - passionate about these things. Â Though I am entitled to my own thoughts and opinions. Doesn't make either of us wrong or right.Skerret wrote:Did you ever see the old god thread? Â He'll sleep like a baby.
djchump wrote:Well no, if you use words incorrectly, that makes you wrong. There's no perspectivism there.revelthedog wrote:He really gets a bit - passionate about these things. Â Though I am entitled to my own thoughts and opinions. Doesn't make either of us wrong or right.Skerret wrote:Did you ever see the old god thread? Â He'll sleep like a baby.
Mod74 wrote:You've used the common or garden definition of theory when the scientific one is quite different. Don't feel bad, most people confuse them (that's not meant to be patronising)revelthedog wrote:like what?djchump wrote:Well no, if you use words incorrectly, that makes you wrong. There's no perspectivism there.revelthedog wrote:He really gets a bit - passionate about these things. Â Though I am entitled to my own thoughts and opinions. Doesn't make either of us wrong or right.Skerret wrote:Did you ever see the old god thread? Â He'll sleep like a baby.
Dark Soldier wrote:I don't understand this thread.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!