Religion IS crazy!

[LostMyShirt]

Bollocks!

No one argues about maths 2 + 2 = 4 and no one should argue against science, not the basics anyway....organisms = evolution.

Its simple stuff...nothing philosophical about it, so no need to over think it, twist it to make yourself comfortable...it is what it is.

What's bollocks?

2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical statement. Of-course, there is no scientific proof that 2+2 must equal 4. The proof is within the system of mathematics.

Yes, Organisms have been shows to abide by Darwins theory, but Natural selection is NOT Darwins theory. Natural selection is the result, as is multiverse theory, of Objectivist philosophy.

"There is nothing philosophical about it" - this is an odd statement. Of-course there is philosophy in it - science relies on a strong foundation of philosophy and cannot operate without it. Lennox also stressed that point quite well.

Science is NOT pure truth. That is positivism and it is well known that positivism is a dead and broken philosophy. Positivism, in a nutshell, means that all knowledge is scientific. It quite clearly is not. There is so much that the scientific method cannot explain, especially when it comes to subjectivity. This is not to denote science from it's place in investigation, but rather it is to show that Science has its place in the realm of investigation, and is a very well developed method. It's place is but a node of knowledge in the realm of knowledge.

 

[explod]

What's bollocks?

2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical statement. Of-course, there is no scientific proof that 2+2 must equal 4. The proof is within the system of mathematics.

Yes, Organisms have been shows to abide by Darwins theory, but Natural selection is NOT Darwins theory. Natural selection is the result, as is multiverse theory, of Objectivist philosophy.

"There is nothing philosophical about it" - this is an odd statement. Of-course there is philosophy in it - science relies on a strong foundation of philosophy and cannot operate without it. Lennox also stressed that point quite well.

Science is NOT pure truth. That is positivism and it is well known that positivism is a dead and broken philosophy. Positivism, in a nutshell, means that all knowledge is scientific. It quite clearly is not. There is so much that the scientific method cannot explain, especially when it comes to subjectivity. This is not to denote science from it's place in investigation, but rather it is to show that Science has its place in the realm of investigation, and is a very well developed method. It's place is but a node of knowledge in the realm of knowledge.

What a load of rubbish.

Science deals in the observable and therefore in verfiable facts.

Religion deals in realms of the mind on which nothing concrete can be made.

I was troubled with this as a young student 45 years ago when I studied metaphysics. One simple discussion was "the potential of a rock" to prove the potential of the mind. And that's okay in the concrete, a rock can become sand or soil to nurture life and of course it is said Peter placed his church on a rock. But to stretch beyond that effect is where theology breaks down.

No truck here Pal

 

[wayneL]

Science is what it is, a from of pure truth... that's why religion hates science so much.

Paradoxically, a lot of purported science is religious faith.

Science adjusts its views based on what's observed, faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved

Hence the fervour and passion.

True science is dispassionate.

It is also un-vested.

 

[explod]

Paradoxically, a lot of purported science is religious faith.

Very good ole Pal

 

[LostMyShirt]

What a load of rubbish.

Science deals in the observable and therefore in verfiable facts.

Religion deals in realms of the mind on which nothing concrete can be made.

I was troubled with this as a young student 45 years ago when I studied metaphysics. One simple discussion was "the potential of a rock" to prove the potential of the mind. And that's okay in the concrete, a rock can become sand or soil to nurture life and of course it is said Peter placed his church on a rock. But to stretch beyond that effect is where theology breaks down.

No truck here Pal

"Science deals in the observable and therefore in verfiable facts."

Are you attempting to suggest that all facts are scientific?

Science, for the time being, deals mostly with the material, buy no will of its own. Until of-course when it comes down to attempting to discern the very fabric of reality. When it is deduced that the fundamental properties of all matter is indeed immaterial, then science will no longer have to constrict itself with the material.

There is no "Science Vs. Religion". As you said yourself that Science deals with the material (which is a generalization) and Religion, "matters of mind". What you are showing here (or at least what I'm hoping you are showing here) is merely the segregation of the objective and subjective, and not so much subjective and material. Without getting further into this - by your logic alone you have shown that there is an exclusivity between Science and Religion, and that they do not deal in aspects of one another.

 

[explod]

"Science deals in the observable and therefore in verfiable facts."

Are you attempting to suggest that all facts are scientific?

Science, for the time being, deals mostly with the material, buy no will of its own. Until of-course when it comes down to attempting to discern the very fabric of reality. When it is deduced that the fundamental properties of all matter is indeed immaterial, then science will no longer have to constrict itself with the material.

There is no "Science Vs. Religion". As you said yourself that Science deals with the material (which is a generalization) and Religion, "matters of mind". What you are showing here (or at least what I'm hoping you are showing here) is merely the segregation of the objective and subjective, and not so much subjective and material. Without getting further into this - by your logic alone you have shown that there is an exclusivity between Science and Religion, and that they do not deal in aspects of one another.

Of course.

Religion is a figment of the imagination planted there by the world powers to control the sheeple. It started many thousands of years with the villiage witch Doctor.

And they do it well. Though I do not know how the Pope gets away with it, dripping in gold whilst the very poor put thier last cents on the plate on a Sunday.

Although it has good practical aspects, sport does the same thing. Just have to observe some of the Collingwood supporters down here in Melbourne.

 

[Sdajii]

Nice demonstration of the truth of this thread's title, LostMyShirt

 

[Glen48]

Geert Wilders, .



I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.

in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.

reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe . These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe , street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe . With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseille and Malmo in Sweden . In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.

In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.

Many schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear '*****, *****'. Satellite dishes are pointed to stations in the country of origin.

In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; Darwin . The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught .

In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels , because he was drinking during the Ramadan.

Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya , Israel . I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France . One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.

attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey .

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.

Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel . First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz; second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines , Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan , Lebanon , and Aceh in Indonesia . Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel .. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel , Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel , they can get everything. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands , 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome , Athens and Jerusalem ...

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe , American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe 's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.

.

 

[bellenuit]

The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel . First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz; second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines , Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan , Lebanon , and Aceh in Indonesia . Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

Until the above quote, I would have accepted, to a certain extent, everything that had been written before. But Israel cannot be absolved of its subjugation of the Palestinians so whimsically as stated. Israel has no rights to Palestinian land just because some biblical text proclaims that they have been given it by god. Palestinians are people too. You cannot kick a Palestinian family out of the home they have lived in for years and say it is right because some scripture says it is so.

Islam is an abhorrent religion, as are most. But so is Judaism, as practiced by the extremists. We must expose the wrongs perpetrated by both sides, if we want to see justice done.

 

[Calliope]

Islam is an abhorrent religion, as are most. But so is Judaism, as practiced by the extremists. We must expose the wrongs perpetrated by both sides, if we want to see justice done.

We should be thankful that Israel exists. Israel is the only country that has the guts to to take action to try to prevent Iran's nuclear proliferation and an inevitable nuclear holocaust. Israel is, of course, acting in its own interests, but these interests coincide with ours.

ISRAEL has announced the formation of an "Iran command" to control special forces operations inside Iran amid growing speculation that a military attack on the Islamic republic is coming.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...rms-iran-command/story-fnb64oi6-1226225213418

 

[bellenuit]

We should be thankful that Israel exists. Israel is the only country that has the guts to to take action to try to prevent Iran's nuclear proliferation and an inevitable nuclear holocaust. Israel is, of course, acting in its own interests, but these interests coincide with ours.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...rms-iran-command/story-fnb64oi6-1226225213418

We should be thankful Israel exists just as we should be thankful the USA exists. But that doesn't mean they should be beyond criticism. There are many within Israel that are abhorred by their own government's treatment of Palestinians. Much of the wrongdoings are to placate or are at the behest of the far right, who are driven by religious zeal. It don't agree that it is in our interest to support those wrongdoings, but agree that it is in our interests to have a strong, but just, Israel.

 

[Calliope]

It don't agree that it is in our interest to support those wrongdoings, but agree that it is in our interests to have a strong, but just, Israel.

In the Middle East "strong and just " is an oxymoron. Some states are strong and unjust. Some are weak and unjust. They all oppose the Israeli state, and Israel has to play by their rules or be obliterated. We have seen how their rules operate in Iran, Syria and Egypt.

 

[explod]

In the Middle East "strong and just " is an oxymoron. Some states are strong and unjust. Some are weak and unjust. They all oppose the Israeli state, and Israel has to play by their rules or be obliterated. We have seen how their rules operate in Iran, Syria and Egypt.

The great problem of it all is that there is not fair and equal education.

I do not prescribe to labor but I will say what Gillard is doing for fair education in Australia is on the right track.

Children need to be able to make their own choices and to do that they need to be impartialy and properly educated first so that they can decide without coercion. Religion if they chose it needs to be later in life.

 

[Julia]

I do not prescribe to labor but I will say what Gillard is doing for fair education in Australia is on the right track.

She has also renewed very considerable funding for the Chaplains in Schools program.
We should not imo be placing people in our schools who are proselytyzing religion.

It has less to do with any noble ideals and more to do with covering all the voter bases. Everything is political.

Children need to be able to make their own choices and to do that they need to be impartialy and properly educated first so that they can decide without coercion. Religion if they chose it needs to be later in life.

I agree. Do you still think Ms Gillard is on the right track?

 

[LostMyShirt]

Nice demonstration of the truth of this thread's title, LostMyShirt

It would be quite interesting to see how you can see the truth of the thread title within my posts.

If you can refute my claims then all the best to you, but I'm confident you cannot.

The point here is Not all knowledge is scientific knowledge.

This is widely accepted and would be crazy to oppose it. Not because it is consensus or an authoritarian position, but because it is philosophically sound.

There is no conflict between science and Religion. This is also philosophically sound, and a reasonable statement.

One thing I cannot handle is the pseudo-persuasive arguments of authority birthed from ignorance.

I dare say that if a new member came on these forums and bagged out the stock market in what-ever manner or form that person wishes to do so - and upon finding out they not only have never traded, but never even taken the time to look into the subject they are attempting to refute, then it would be safe to say a flurry of disgruntled members would pounce on such claims as arguments from ignorance.

The title of this thread should be "People ARE crazy!".

So if you can refute my position that not all knowledge is scientific, and that infering scientific knowledge as absolute is the only reasonable approach, then I would lay down my arms. I'm quite positive you can't - no one can. It is an already discussed and thrown away topic. Positivism is a failure of a philosophy, and many Atheistic philosophers would say the same.

It makes me chuckle that todays new atheistic movement consists of ignorant and binary outlooks;

1. If you are religious, you oppose science.
2. If you oppose a scientific claim, you are religious.

Both statements 1 and 2, are stupid. Absolutely stupid.

Once again, John Lennox made these points quite clear and sucessfully argued their truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_gOePfyIos

 

[bellenuit]

There is no conflict between science and Religion. This is also philosophically sound, and a reasonable statement.

Lost. That is complete nonsense. The biblical account of creation conflicts with the scientific view of how the universe and planets were formed.

All miracles - changing water to wine, walking on water, raising the dead, etc etc - conflict completely with scientific knowledge of what is possible.

There may be areas - spirituality in particular - that science is only beginning to look at, and doesn't have explanations for (yet), that many religious people incorrectly regard as outside the realm of science, but where religion deals with the physical, the measurable, the observable, the testable, it is more often than not in conflict with science.

 

[LostMyShirt]

Lost. That is complete nonsense. The biblical account of creation conflicts with the scientific view of how the universe and planets were formed.

All miracles - changing water to wine, walking on water, raising the dead, etc etc - conflict completely with scientific knowledge of what is possible.

There may be areas - spirituality in particular - that science is only beginning to look at, and doesn't have explanations for (yet), that many religious people incorrectly regard as outside the realm of science, but where religion deals with the physical, the measurable, the observable, the testable, it is more often than not in conflict with science.

We don't know the motivations behind the texts, and they are subject to much study.

Put simply, Religion, much like philosophy attempts to explain "why", is most cases. Science directly deals with "how".

Science, or rather natural and material sciences cannot deal with spirituality. It IS outside the realm of science, as are many other aspects of life. To a subject more relevant - how does material science deal with immaterial mind? They can't, so they invoke that the mind is merely the sum of its parts, that being the brain. The mind, at the moment, is outside the realm of material sciences. They cannot deal with immateriality. Immateriality is not only an aspect of mind, but of the fundamental properties of the Universe.

1. Everything that had a beginning, had a cause.
2. The Universe has a cause.

Simple philosophy.

The conflict is within the realm of philosophy not the verification of scientific method. For instance, with Naturalism, they contend chance to be the driving force of creation. However this chance, given the right amount of time becomes an inevidability. Can you see where I'm going with this? I am reffering to things such as Natural selection. If Natural selection be true, that being the driving force that "chooses" the best traits, then that in itself is a bigger miricle than walking on water.

Personaly, when it comes to the philosophy of creation and beginnings, I believe in evolutionary targets.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

All miracles - changing water to wine, walking on water, raising the dead, etc etc - conflict completely with scientific knowledge of what is possible.

If you want to understand miracles better, some Carlos Castaneda reading is helpful. It's not nearly so cut and dried as you'd imagine.

If you said "show me someone who can turn water to wine" I can't. No one can.

But this reality that we all live in is (apparently) one of many possible. If you were to watch a very accomplished meditator doing his thing, what you'd see is a man sitting still with his eyes closed. But in his experience, he is flying through the universe, and turning water into wine. The obvious retort is "well it's not real then, it's just imagination", but that's apparently not the case. It is just as real. That's what these guys say - it's just as real. Just like us they can use their imaginations, and they call that "imagination" - boring. They can dream at night like we do, and they call that "a dream" - boring. But these 'other worlds' they visit are by all accounts just as real as this particular one we inhabit. That means that all the qualities that go into making this here-and-now a reality, are also present in their other worlds.

The other way to look at it is to say that what we call reality is pure imagination and nothing more.

If you then said, "well how did other normal people witness water changing into wine", the answer might be that these sort of dudes like Jesus and co. have a powerful field effect where they can draw people momentarily into their reality, their 'other world' where such things are possible. A similar phenomenon is found with hypnosis, but on a much smaller scale obviously.

The way you're thinking about things is very restricted!

 

[explod]

Science, or rather natural and material sciences cannot deal with spirituality. It IS outside the realm of science, as are many other aspects of life. To a subject more relevant - how does material science deal with immaterial mind? They can't, so they invoke that the mind is merely the sum of its parts, that being the brain. The mind, at the moment, is outside the realm of material sciences. They cannot deal with immateriality. Immateriality is not only an aspect of mind, but of the fundamental properties of the Universe.

1. Everything that had a beginning, had a cause.
2. The Universe has a cause.

Simple philosophy.

It is not outsdie the realms of science at all. Religion is a fairy tale and at sceince a psychosis.

Immateriality, as implied and defined, is nothing.

We do not know about beginnings, in my belief there was no begginning and there is no end. Though the universe and beyond is expanding at the moment no one knows what was before.

Philosophy is reasoning on probabilties which often leads to new science and understanding.

Sprituality is no more than belief.

 

[Julia]

Apologies for lowering the tone of this esoteric discussion but I was reminded of one of the great songs of musical theatre - Herod's Song from Jesus Christ Superstar.

This version is fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK4VImbHxAc