Heaven, I'm in heaven

[mpjh]

Ah yes, I'm familiar with basic history. However, I'm not certain as to the "reign of terror" part. Did you come up with that all by yourself, or was their some actual hard evidence?

Once again, I'm all for understanding the world and scientific method.

Well, one example of the reign of terror is the elimination of all scientists that posited the existence of the atom beginning with suppressing the initial theory by Democritus of their existence.

[CrazyAnglican]

Ya' see now here is the problem. I've got three people who didn't listen to my actual point. Go back.....see if I actually said anything that was an unwarranted assault on science. I actually said it's a pretty good thing and proclaimed myself for it. I also pointed out that it can be a two edged sword. Now we have have a choice:

A) Deny that some serious problems come from scientific reseach from time to time.

B) Realize that they come and make sure that we have a good system of ethics (religious or non) to guide us along the way.

You decide, but I think that one of those two options would be sticking your head in the sand.

I am pro-science, but I'm also pro-ethics. You can certainly have ethics without religion. By the same token with religions (especially those with scripture) you can know up front what you are getting into. You can also go back and defend your decisions when another believer comes to "lead" you in the way.

Ah yes, I'm familiar with basic history. However, I'm not certain as to the "reign of terror" part. Did you come up with that all by yourself, or was their some actual hard evidence?

Once again, I'm all for understanding the world and scientific method.

Well, one example of the reign of terror is the elimination of all scientists that posited the existence of the atom beginning with suppressing the initial theory by Democritus of their existence.

Sounds horrific, post a link/source and let's get this discussion started. I'd certainly like to read about it.

[mpjh]

Problem with you argument is the old gun lobby adage that "Guns don't kill, people do." Nuclear weapons don't kill, governments, and the people that support them, do. It is not science that lacks ethics, its is the ethics of the people in power that are lacking.

The problem is not science, it is people.

If you want to know more about Aristotle and Democritus -- you might start with google, have fun.

[porkenbeans]

Ya' see now here is the problem. I've got three people who didn't listen to my actual point. Go back.....see if I actually said anything that was an unwarranted assault on science. I actually said it's a pretty good thing and proclaimed myself for it. I also pointed out that it can be a two edged sword. Now we have have a choice:

A) Deny that some serious problems come from scientific reseach from time to time.

B) Realize that they come and make sure that we have a good system of ethics (religious or non) to guide us along the way.

You decide, but I think that one of those two options would be sticking your head in the sand.

I am pro-science, but I'm also pro-ethics. You can certainly have ethics without religion. By the same token with religions (especially those with scripture) you can know up front what you are getting into. You can also go back and defend your decisions when another believer comes to "lead" you in the way.

Ah yes, I'm familiar with basic history. However, I'm not certain as to the "reign of terror" part. Did you come up with that all by yourself, or was their some actual hard evidence?

Once again, I'm all for understanding the world and scientific method.

Well, one example of the reign of terror is the elimination of all scientists that posited the existence of the atom beginning with suppressing the initial theory by Democritus of their existence.

Sounds horrific, post a link/source and let's get this discussion started. I'd certainly like to read about it.

Yes and do some reading on the advances in science that the medieval church used in the fantastic ways to torture. The devices that they came up with are very enlightening.

[CrazyAnglican]

Ah, you're stalling. Where's the link, mpjh? Let's look at the situation.

Science can't have ethics as it's a process not an individual. Scientists can have ethics that guide them in research. Yes, give a government a weapon eventually they will use it. However that does not absolve the scientists who provided the weapons. Oppenheimer knew that, "Lo, I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds." (a quote from the Bahagvad-Gita, I believe).

[CrazyAnglican]

Yes and do some reading on the advances in science that the medieval church used in the fantastic ways to torture. The devices that they came up with are very enlightening.

I'm certainly aware of them, and scientitific advancements ended that how?

[porkenbeans]

Or how Galileo spent his last days under house arrest for even daring to go against the church. You are the benefactors of the Christian legacy. Be proud.

[KoolBak]

Crusades....Inquisitions....Witch Hunts.......lovely history

[mpjh]

Yes and do some reading on the advances in science that the medieval church used in the fantastic ways to torture. The devices that they came up with are very enlightening.

I'm certainly aware of them, and scientitific advancements ended that how?

Science explains, it takes us beyond superstition and the terror of enforced ignorance. that is how

[lgoasklucyl]

One of these days, MP, you're going to realize the words 'tolerance' and 'acceptance' do not have a place in the vast vocabulary of Nappy. He can thesaurus the hell out of his sentences to make them as intellectual as possible, but when it comes down to him understand the concepts it's simply not going to happen. This is, of course, why he cannot grasp what you're trying to present by displaying these results.

He's not telling anyone they're wrong (he's not telling anyone anything, they're results from a Pew- an organization I'm sure knows a hell of a lot more about statistics and research analysis than one said Nappy, unless of course he has hundreds of people employed for him who specialize in Statistics etc... who help him instantaneously determine how 'poor' a poll is), but rather that (unlike certain members of our forum....) people are actually growing more tolerant. And, you know, not leading conquests on one another to try and convert them.

[mpjh]

Yes, a bunch of us have nappy's number now. His racists diatribes against Arabs removed the final veil from his pseudo-intellectual posture. He does eventually wear down, especially under Tonka's thoughtful analysis. Eventually we can get back to the thread despite nappy's thesaurus.

[Backglass]

Damn. Someone's running out of steam here. Every time i come back here i see less substance and more ineffectual, aimless meanderings. When you guys can't even raise a decent fuss out of backglass on a religious thread, i fear for the future of this sad excuse for a forum.

The thing is, all Backglass ever does is use the FSM, Pink Unicorn, Russell's Teapot, or whatever ridiculous pseudo-simile he can come up with as if it was proof that there is no God.

LOL. I have never used any of those, but thanks for thinking I did. I do like smilies though.

As for proof of gods...prove to me there are. Unlike most christians who are closed to the possibility that supernatural beings DON'T exist, I am very open to believing in anything...given proof. But simply saying "You just gotta believe!" or "I have felt his presence!" doesn't work for me. Also relying on a two thousand year old text written by bronze age nomads as "proof" is weak at best.

To put it simply, I believe God cannot be any of those things because I believe that God is necessary. I won't go into detail, but I know that most apologists would destroy Backglass in an actual debate.

Why not go into detail? I would love to hear your "actual debate".

If the FSM analogy is the only reason that he became an atheist, then I count another crack in the atheists' wall of "logic and reason".

Nice smiley. I actually didn't "become" an atheist...i didn't "convert" to atheism or join some "athiest church". I just came to realize that the definition simply fit what I have known since I was about nine years old. That there are no supernatural puppeteers in the sky and that when we die, it's game over.

[CrazyAnglican]

Or how Galileo spent his last days under house arrest for even daring to go against the church. You are the benefactors of the Christian legacy. Be proud.

You didn't answer the question. Talking points aside, there is a lot of good that comes from the same church that you casually indict for a "reign of terror" against science (and btw seem to assume that I'm continuing regardless of my actual statements). Have there been historical abuses by some of the memebers of the Christian Churches? Sure, but I hold today's Christians accountable for the actions of those people no moreso than I do atheists for atrocities by governments on their behalf. Why should I? It's merely an attempt to smear an entire group of people for the actions of some. When you really look at this issue you'll find much more good being done by Christians than evil of this mangitude.

Yes and do some reading on the advances in science that the medieval church used in the fantastic ways to torture. The devices that they came up with are very enlightening.

I'm certainly aware of them, and scientitific advancements ended that how?

Science explains, it takes us beyond superstition and the terror of enforced ignorance. that is how

Scientists that were overwhelmingly Christian at the time, right? People that were influenced by the words that Christ spoke and put them to good use. Not only Scientists by the way though, People of all walks of life that have brought us to a point at which human life is meaning more, or do you say that it means less to me than you due to my faith?

Crusades....Inquisitions....Witch Hunts.......lovely history

Sure those are a part of the history of some Christians, but certainly you're not saying that atheists never commit atrocities, are you?

[mpjh]

I didn't say anything about "scientists," I said science. Science is a methodology, an approach to investigation of the real world. Scientists are people.

[CrazyAnglican]

I didn't say anything about "scientists," I said science. Science is a methodology, an approach to investigation of the real world. Scientists are people.

I said scientists. You introduced science in the abstract as part of your answer. Were you trying to dodge the issue?

[CrazyAnglican]

Back to the point, Science is a very good tool as long as those who employ it and its advances do so in an ethical manner. Religion is one of those ways that people learn ethics and morality.

[mpjh]

You can learn ethics without being religious.

[Backglass]

Religion is one of those ways that people learn ethics and morality.

Perhaps, but certainly not the only way. One must not be religious in order to learn/live an ethical and moral life.

One could also say that religion is one of the ways that people learn hatred & bigotry.

[CrazyAnglican]

Certainly true, but not for the vast majority of mainstream churches. Once again it comes back to the idea that with a religion based on its own scripture there is that ability to call those in leadership roles to task. Hence you're not learning hatred and bigotry if you're reading the words of Christ for yourself.

One of the main problems that lead to the oft' cited atrocities mentioned earlier was that the Roman Catholic Church became a seat of power because they were the only ones who could read the scripture in most cases. THe Protestant Reformation fixed that not the Scientific Revolution.

You can learn ethics without being religious.

Sure you can, but that in no way negates the good that comes from being religious.

[mpjh]

Certainly true, but not for the vast majority of mainstream churches. Once again it comes back to the idea that with a religion based on its own scripture there is that ability to call those in leadership roles to task. Hence you're not learning hatred and bigotry if you're reading the words of Christ for yourself.

One of the main problems that lead to the oft' cited atrocities mentioned earlier was that the Roman Catholic Church became a seat of power because they were the only ones who could read the scripture in most cases. THe Protestant Reformation fixed that not the Scientific Revolution.

You can learn ethics without being religious.

Sure you can, but that in no way negates the good that comes from being religious.

First, because religion has no lock on ethics, the fact religions teach ethics doesn't really justify religion.

Second, the protestant religion brought us witch hunts, wars over religion, discrimination against Catholics and the attendant racism, continued support for slavery in the United States, and much else decidedly similar to the Catholic inquisition.

However, this is not stated to condemn any religion. It is just that history is important. It tells us where we have been. From my perch, it appears unions in the United States have done more to bring comfort, stability, and power to the powerless than any religion, but that is another discussion.

The op of this thread was about a poll of Christians that seemed to indicate a flexibility and tolerance toward non-Christians that I found heartening. It was meant to point out a positive aspect of religiosity today.

[lgoasklucyl]

Certainly true, but not for the vast majority of mainstream churches. Once again it comes back to the idea that with a religion based on its own scripture there is that ability to call those in leadership roles to task. Hence you're not learning hatred and bigotry if you're reading the words of Christ for yourself.

One of the main problems that lead to the oft' cited atrocities mentioned earlier was that the Roman Catholic Church became a seat of power because they were the only ones who could read the scripture in most cases. THe Protestant Reformation fixed that not the Scientific Revolution.

You can learn ethics without being religious.

Sure you can, but that in no way negates the good that comes from being religious.

I'm not going to deny that you cannot learn ethics or morality from religion, but I am going to disagree with the positive sentiment you have towards the church of today. I know not all churches do this (again, Nappy, tolerance- try it out ), but the amount of preaching churches have done against the homosexual community is an atrocity. Basing your beliefs against a group of people, a minority, and to deny that minority rights based on cultural norms penned 2000 years ago is bigotry at its best.

I would bet my life on the fact that if the Jesus penned in your scripture (of which I have read- four years of Catholic high), a character I'm rather familiar with, WERE to return- he would not be for oppressing a group of people. There is no way a man who preached so much peace, love, and acceptance (another vocab word for you Nappy man ) would openly support a group of people being denied rights by a government. Would he have supported the oppression that used to be written into legislation versus African Americans? I sure as hell don't think so.

I digress, though. Religions can teach ethics and morality- but also still lead to plenty harm. These negative affects are what began my divergence from the religious life when I was in high school. I could not tag myself to an organization that would speak out to oppress individuals so actively. I understand not all churches do so, but it was simply the flame that ignited the fuse.

[CrazyAnglican]

Response to mpjh-

And a positive aspect I've tried to agree with you on (even though I dispute that most Christians would think Jesus was unecessary), this side step was the result of a tongue-in-cheek retort to Porky's crack about fear and wishful thinking.

Now, as to the negatives, who exactly has been negative here? I brought up one aspect of science that can be problematic, and what happened? A storm of anti-Christian rhetoric, right? It seems that you don't seem to share the tolerance that you are commending Christians for, or at the very least you weren't willing to take my points at face value. At what point did you decide that I was telling you that you worldview was wrong or even that there was a problem with it? I asserted that science was a useful tool that needed to be used ethically. Even going so far as agreeing that one did not necessarily have to be religious to be ethical.

Response to Koolbak-

But aren't you still painting all Christians with the same brush (I know that you've stated all churches are not guilty of that but your tone is one that seems anti-Christian based on this issue)? The Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire is homosexual. I'd say be careful that you do not turn into what you detest (and I mean that kindly and not as a rebuke). Discrimination is carried out against all sorts of people and all sorts of people speak out against it.

[mpjh]

I haven't used any anti-christian rhetoric. I have tried simply to point out that organized religions since the time of Aristotle have a history of suppressing science, even killing scientists for their thoughts. It is a terrible heritage that cannot be denied.

[CrazyAnglican]

"reign of terror" wasn't rhetoric? Like I said I do not deny any of it, but I do not hold the whole accountable for the acts of the few with regard to religion or science. I've stated that scientists who gave weapons (more appropriately WMD's) to governments were accountable for their own actions. I have not (at any time) said that science is a bad thing, merely that it needs to be handled ethically. I'm really having trouble seeing what your objection is here it seems a common sense proposal. I do not hold all scientists accountable for the ones who behave unethically, so why the need for the talking points about witch hunts and such with regard to Christians?

[mpjh]

My reference to the reign of terror was to Aristotle and his influence on man's development through the dark ages.

My recollection is that Aristotle lived about 350 years before Jesus.