[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;33850155]How is it one way? How exactly does religion look at love in a way science doesn't? If anything it would be the opposite since science actually studies love, its effect on people, the environment and what it actually is and doesn't mean a scientist can't experience it.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say certain people can't experience it, at all.
This isn't about believing in anything, it's about how we can percieve it. I gain no joy in reading someone's study in people's experiences, but I do enjoy reading about the experiences themselves.
[QUOTE=ripple3000;33850196]Lol no. Religion gave people something to do, a lifestyle if you wish that guided them towards morales, ie not stealing etc.[/QUOTE]
People naturally form morals. It has nothing to do with religion.
[QUOTE=AK'z;33850316]I didn't say certain people can't experience it, at all.
This isn't about believing in anything, it's about how we can percieve it. I gain no joy in reading someone's study in people's experiences, but I do enjoy reading about the experiences themselves.[/QUOTE]
Personal opinions
[QUOTE=AK'z;33850316]I didn't say certain people can't experience it, at all.
This isn't about believing in anything, it's about how we can percieve it. I gain no joy in reading someone's study in people's experiences, but I do enjoy reading about the experiences themselves.[/QUOTE]
Yea and what does this have to do with science and religion? Science concerns itself with peoples experiences just as much as religion.
[QUOTE=Scar;33850230]
Ancient myth are always people with no methods of actually knowing things trying to explain phenomena with thinks they knew.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxlPVSAnWOo&list=FLfI7BltkJ_R8yWLCj7wVcMw&index=7&feature=plpp_video[/media]
[/QUOTE]
I'm just saying they're interesting to know about, so what?
[editline]22nd December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;33850345]Yea and what does this have to do with science and religion? Science concerns itself with peoples experiences just as much as religion.[/QUOTE]
Philosophy ain't a science.
[QUOTE=AK'z;33850353]I'm just saying they're interesting to know about, so what?[/QUOTE]
Nothing wrong with that.
[quote=James Randi]
Enjoy the fantasy, the fun, the stories
But make sure that there's a clear sharp line
Drawn on the floor
To do otherwise is to embrace madness[/quote]
Why even make a religious thread, its going to be bias due to the majority of atheists here anyways.
[QUOTE=Scar;33850369]Nothing wrong with that.[/QUOTE]
Nothing wrong with embracing the madness either. :v:
[editline]22nd December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=ripple3000;33850397]Why even make a religious thread, its going to be bias due to the majority of atheists here anyways.[/QUOTE]
why post?
[QUOTE=ripple3000;33850397]Why even make a religious thread, its going to be bias due to the majority of atheists here anyways.[/QUOTE]
Well, just bring your arguments here and back them up. Numerical superiority never won a debate, good arguments and thoughts did
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;33850325]People naturally form morals. It has nothing to do with religion.[/QUOTE]
I'll have to disagree with this. Humans are animals. Intelligent ones, sure, but still animals. If there is no reason to have morals, we don't "naturally form" them.
Societies don't need morals to stay in place, all they need is someone who is stronger than the others. Morals are something that went above this because we as intelligent animals thought we deserved more than staying on the basic "survival of the fittest" scheme of existence.
Religion was notably a tool that enforced morals, plus explaining things that people did not understand (and still don't for certain parts).
[QUOTE=Scar;33850328]Personal opinions[/QUOTE]
Correct. Hopefully it will override the arguement.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;33850485]I'll have to disagree with this. Humans are animals. Intelligent ones, sure, but still animals. If there is no reason to have morals, we don't "naturally form" them.
Societies don't need morals to stay in place, all they need is someone who is stronger than the others. Morals are something that went above this because we as intelligent animals thought we deserved more than staying on the basic "survival of the fittest" scheme of existence.[/QUOTE]
Most animals have some sort of "pack mentality", meaning "I'll live longer if I team up with the rest of my kind". That's the basis of all our morals, nothing more
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;33850485]I'll have to disagree with this. Humans are animals. Intelligent ones, sure, but still animals. If there is no reason to have morals, we don't "naturally form" them.
[/QUOTE]
There is a reason. A society with good rules will outlive ones without good rules meaning that naturally rules that makes sense will form. We naturally care for a children and familty because they have our genes and we will naturally care for the rest of our society if it allows us to live as well.
[QUOTE=Scar;33850426]Well, just bring your arguments here and back them up. Numerical superiority never won a debate, good arguments and thoughts did[/QUOTE]
Numerical superiority always wins, overwhelming and not worth arguing against.
So boring to talk about how "societies" do so well naturally. As long as there aren't any extreme cults being formed behind our backs, they'll be fine.
The individual is what matters most here, as in this forum.
[QUOTE=ripple3000;33850660]Numerical superiority always wins, overwhelming and not worth arguing against.[/QUOTE]
Tell that to Galileo
[QUOTE=ripple3000;33850660]Numerical superiority always wins, overwhelming and [b]not worth arguing against.[/b][/QUOTE]
How am I supposed to understand that?
All you ever do is make claims without backing them up with anything, just bold statements.
Maybe you aren't worth arguing against?
[QUOTE=Scar;33850540]Most animals have some sort of "pack mentality", meaning "I'll live longer if I team up with the rest of my kind". That's the basis of all our morals, nothing more[/QUOTE]
Agreed, but religion expanded these basic morals to something more significant.
Basically we went from "I'll live longer if I team up with the rest of my kind, but I'll still have to submit to that one guy who could kill me easily" to "I'll live longer if I team up with the rest of my kind, and we should all treat each other equally because we will go along together better like that, and if you don't, you'll got to hell/the god of weather will take you in a tornado/whatever, so be kind with others".
[QUOTE=Scar;33850725]How am I supposed to understand that?
All you ever do is make claims without backing them up with anything, just bold statements.
Maybe you aren't worth arguing against?[/QUOTE]
Then why are you trying to instigate an argument.
[QUOTE=ripple3000;33850660]Numerical superiority always wins, overwhelming and not worth arguing against.[/QUOTE]
You're in a mass debate thread. Debate = Arguments != Numerical Superiority.
Maybe if you were in the public place in front of real people numerical superiority would have an importance but here it really doesn't.
So really just stop shitposting and make some actual arguments, or you can just get out and go back to sensationalist headlines where you can start shitstorms in peace.
On one side, "they're all atheists, this arguement is pointless" on the other, "Live life by logic alone"
both equally tedious. although the first gives up pretty pathetically.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;33850769]You're in a mass debate thread. Debate = Arguments != Numerical Superiority.
Maybe if you were in the public place in front of real people numerical superiority would have an importance but here it really doesn't.
So really just stop shitposting and make some actual arguments, or you can just get out and go back to sensationalist headlines where you can start shitstorms in peace.[/QUOTE]
Well.. you're french... shouldn't you be the one getting out?
Life can't be lived on logic alone, or else you would have to be braindead/deprived of any kind of feeling.
[QUOTE=AK'z;33850809]On one side, "they're all atheists, this arguement is pointless" on the other, "Live life by logic alone"
both equally tedious. although the first gives up pretty pathetically.[/QUOTE]
This argument isn't going to go anywhere because religion, and atheism is something people have embedded permanently and arent going to give in on.
[QUOTE=ripple3000;33850863]Well.. you're french... shouldn't you be the one getting out?[/QUOTE]
If you want to start a shitstorm at least try harder than that
[QUOTE=ripple3000;33850879]This argument isn't going to go anywhere because religion, and atheism is something people have embedded permanently and arent going to give in on.[/QUOTE]
Wrong.
I am not embedded with jackshit. I believe that the word "God" can be meddled with to suit a person's way of life. Understanding what a person feels towards things is a big part of my life.
Without expression, we're dull. Without discovery, we're dull.
I couldn't care for meaning, but for intent alone. Atheism isn't just "without religion", it's "with logic". However ridiculous that sounds, normal = logical which leads to dullness.
[QUOTE=AK'z;33850982]Wrong.
I am not embedded with jackshit. I believe that the word "God" can be meddled with to suit a person's way of life. Understanding what a person feels towards things is a big part of my life.
Without expression, we're dull. Without discovery, we're dull.
I couldn't care for meaning, but for intent alone. Atheism isn't just "without religion", it's "with logic". However ridiculous that sounds, normal = logical which leads to dullness.[/QUOTE]
Except that you can't 'meddle' with word's definitions. Believe it or not, they do in fact [I]have definitions.[/I] Like if I were to define 'god' as the mug sitting on my desk, and if I were to smash it, I cannot say with certainty that I have "killed god". It's entirely nonsensical. If the definitions of words mean nothing to you, then your argument means as little as the fluidity of those words' definitions.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33851357] If the definitions of words mean nothing to you, then your argument means as little as the fluidity of those words' definitions.[/QUOTE]
Good.
Now that it's settled. Arguement is now completed.
Religion exists because sharing spiritual experiences with people makes them happy. It has been hypothesized to have evolved as a result of the human tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to unknowns.
I heard it explained this way: If you hear a noise in a tree, you're going to assume it's not something banal, like the wind, but a Tiger, waiting to pounce. Humans evolved to be paranoid. On a much larger scale, if something that can be construed as miraculous occurs, people will believe it is an act of a higher power before they believe it is just a coincidence.
My hypothesis is that it's a crude and outdated way of explaining the un-explainable. It was made basically as an excuse for not being able to find any other logical reason to why something happens. Essentially it started off with how the Earth was formed, how are people made, what is that big bright piece of shit in the sky because it's hurting my eyes, how can a giant fucking tree come from a small ass piece of shit like a seed, and so forth. It was then used in a more philosophical sense. What happens after we die, why was the universe created in the first place, and if it was "created" who was it's creator? It also serves as a medium for people to have some sort of common ground socially. Generally two people who believe in the same religion get together better, you go to church and meet people, and it's often used for moral justification (besides common ones such as stealing, rape, murder is bad). It's also very comforting to know that there is a very powerful being to watch over you and that when you die you live forever in a wonderful place. It's also used as a sense of justice in some ways. That asshole who just burned your house down for no fucking reason? Yeah, if the government doesn't punish him he's fucked for the rest of time in a hellish underworld.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.