Wtf?

[sergey500]

And a waste of time...

Geeze, how kind of you. Respecting people's opinions is not you're thing, eh?

[Racoon]

Geeze, how kind of you. Respecting people's opinions is not you're thing, eh?

 

Not when they're blatantly confrontational... :hyper: :confused:

 

;)

 

I'm just saying so...

[sergey500]

It wasn't blant the first time I typed it, I edited it later and wrote that in after scanning through later pages.

[Qfwfq]

Cool it guys, both.

 

What makes people believe so much in science? What makes some of them react so strongly to those who argue against accepted scientific facts?

[Racoon]

Cool it guys, both.

 

What makes people believe so much in science? What makes some of them react so strongly to those who argue against accepted scientific facts?

 

S' Cool Brotha' Man :confused:

I Dig...

 

1)Facts 2) People acting/believing against the Facts

[Qfwfq]

1)Facts

How sure can you be of some of those facts?

 

2) People acting/believing against the Facts

Does that do you damage, endanger your life or property? Some react much the same as how religious people react to criticism. Not always so totally scientific.

 

Many people find plenty of reason to believe in religion:

 

Facts, contemplate a spectacular sunset, or starry sky, marvel at living creatures, or a host of other things in Nature. Different people simply come to different conclusions. IOW, they connect it with different a god.

 

Or other reasons, such as finding comfort, or reason to justify their daily strife. Some people turn to faith, some to family, some to money, some to girls, some to knowing how subatomic particles work.

 

Choose your god, choose your things to live for. Why criticize other's free choices?

[Turtle]

Choose your god, choose your things to live for. Why criticize other's free choices?

 

___I'll take a go at why. I don't accept that religion & science are interchangeable in regard to a god. Religion casts gods as having personality; science doesn't claim an electron gets angy, or talks to people in dreams, or needs people to worship it.

___If I see a guy on my crew doing something that is ignorant, illogical, illucid, etc. which affects the whole job, I stop him & criticize the error. If the worker doesn't accept my correction because of some mistaken belief, then I criticize the worker. Because religions see fit to push their influence on making laws for all people, and because all religions are based on non-reproducable "spirits", powers, etc., I see fit to critize religions.

___The whole idea of worship is illogical. I don't worship science, I just use its method.

[arkain101]

Yes, even spirituality can be used as your cup off coffee in the morning and not your master.

More as something to use in life instead of it seeming to use you to hold up its own integrity.

 

I can not, and no one can force another to think like they do. All one can do is inspire another to become a student in the related subject. One can not discredit or effectivly form an opinion on a subject he does not fully understand or comprehend and that he has not studied with a unbiased open mind.

 

I suggest to people who have shut doors to certain subjects like spirituality to consider the fact there is a whole bag of information and truth in there that you are very unaware of. There is things to learn of this matter that dont have to be lived by or taken too seriously, but these things will teach a part of you that you really may not even know exists. In the truth basic of this subject of god/spirituality, I would feel confident to say not many could go through the 'course' and walk away with the same consciousness as they did as they walked in.

[Turtle]

___It's not a matter of personal spirituality at contention here, its the matter of people & their organized religions foisting their magical supernatural spiritual beliefs on others & the fact that many of these beliefs are coming from dry selfish dead old men who could write good fairy tales & turn a good dollar. :naughty:

[Qfwfq]

I don't accept that religion & science are interchangeable in regard to a god.

Interchangeable? No, not interchangeable, certainly not. They are two very different things. However, for many people, the one is serving purposes similar to those that the other serves for other people.

 

For many other people science fits perfectly in with religion. Ask a Jesuit Father if he thinks science disproves God. Many of them could teach you geology, biology, physics, mathematics and perhaps even very well. I'm quite sure the Dalai Lama, for instance, also has a very positive attitude toward science and has studied quite a lot of it.

 

Because religions see fit to push their influence on making laws for all people, and because all religions are based on non- reproducable "spirits", powers, etc., I see fit to critize religions.

This is an alternative twist to the debate. Many people see fit to use armed guards, often called policemen, to enforce the laws made on other bases onto all people. Laws may be the Lord's Word, or they may be chosen by the king or despot of the moment, or by the more priviledged, or by a body of people elected by those that can be bothered to vote... Some people criticize all these and believe that each should simply have a sense of justice and fairness.

 

I don't worship science,

Neither do I, but some do. I've seen them even teaching their children about it like a creed, in manners quite comparable to teaching a child about prophets and saints.

[hallenrm]

I was indeed confounded by the thread, I wanted to add, but could not. It is indeed a challenging task. So I waited and thought.

 

Suddenly, today when I read the morning paper today, I came across this piece:

 

"People are getting sick and tired of Islam. At least, of that unacceptable face of Islam as revealed by instances like hysterical overreaction to the Danish cartoons. In India and elsewhere, rioters, who had probably never even seen the objectionable cartoons and who may not even have heard of Denmark, shed innocent blood and destroyed public and private property which had no Danish connection whatsoever. To make matters worse, a UP legislator announced that he was setting up a contribution fund to collect Rs 51 crore as a reward for the assassination of the cartoonist concerned. That a supposed lawmaker should publicly promote a criminal conspiracy to murder was more outrageous than any purportedly blasphemous illustration could be........

 

Oil is the bone — and the bane — of contention. We’ll take your oil and in return give you our democracy, and all that goes with it, the West seems to say, in Iraq and elsewhere (though notably not in Saudi Arabia, the real hotbed of fundamentalism). Oil fuels the consumerist culture of the free market, the adjunct of western democracy. But oil lights the lamp of freedom and progress at a fearsome price, that of perhaps irreversible environmental degradation and the beggaring of the planet’s resources.

Perhaps that is the unrealised torment of radicalised Islam. Not lack of progress, but of too much progress (in terms of Gross Domestic Product and Gross Domestic Consumption, with emphasis on the word ‘gross’) that has been made elsewhere thanks to Allah’s bounty of oil, in the process creating a culture of insatiable voracity antithetical not only to the innate austerity of Islam but also to the delicate balance of nature. Like a blinded Samson pulling down the temple on himself, radicalised Islam is a self-destructive subversion of a market-driven order of unsustainable growth which desperately needs an alternative model to ensure our common survival. Radicalised Islam is obviously not an answer to the problem, nor does it think of itself as such. But it just might be an unwitting finger pointing out the problem, and the urgent need to fix it before it fixes us. Sick of Islam? It just might be a symptom for a much deeper malaise." Jug Suraiya, Times of India, 11 March 2006.

 

I believe what Jug is saying, adds a new dimension to the ongoing debate in this thread.

 

Any comments???

[Boerseun]

Any comments???

Yes.

 

My aim with this thread was not to make a case for or against Islam.

 

My point is that I discriminate equally:

 

Both Islam and Christianity is a manifestation of what I'd like to call the "Santa Claus" syndrome, for want of a better term. Read my earlier posts.

 

I don't want to get involved into a discussion of the pros and cons of any specific religion, else this thread will be moved into the "Theology" realm.

 

Yes - Muslims are silly. But not in any measure more or less silly than Christians are.

 

So let's not go there - let's not pitch their delusions against yours.

[Racoon]

Yes.

 

My aim with this thread was not to make a case for or against Islam.

 

My point is that I discriminate equally:

 

 

Yes..

Both Islam and Christianity are equally about WTF!?

[hallenrm]

I don't want to get involved into a discussion of the pros and cons of any specific religion, else this thread will be moved into the "Theology" realm.

 

Yes - Muslims are silly. But not in any measure more or less silly than Christians are.

 

compare this with an earlier thread

 

Why should I be sensitive (i.e. not print cartoons that might offend a whole lot of people suffering from the same mass delusion)?

Shouldn't I be compassionate and inform them that there are helplines for people suffering from these kind of neurological disorders?

Why should I feel compelled to appease them (be it any of the common religions), make them feel that: 'Sure - there's this Big Guy up in the Sky lookin' after your interests - I don't believe it, but seeing as you've got the masses behind you, I must pussyfoot around your delusion'?

 

Why, being an atheist, should I feel that they've got a bigger stake in world affairs than I've got? Is Truth decided by popular vote nowadays?

 

I personally feel offended at such childish things as belief in a 'God' and offense taken at such a 'God' (or his prophet) being depicted in a badly rendered cartoon having such an influence in my world.

 

You definetly sound much more mature, Boerseun. I think this thread has helped you to contemplate.

 

Sometimes I do feel that it is not the worth of time and thought to indulge in such discussions. But perhaps I am wrong, it is perhaps the purpose of our life to spread light.:)

[Boerseun]

No, Charlie, there's no 'maturing' there - I still stand firmly by both those posts.

[motherengine]

to print such a thing knowing the possible consequence is socially irresponsible. those who killed as a reaction to the cartoon would probably have killed anyway at some point, though it is likely that those who died would not have died without the specific instigation of the cartoon. to say f-you fanatics i want my freedom of expression is to say f-you to the innocents involved as well. face it, if people (generally speaking) really cared about the negative results of provoking material, censorship would not be an issue. and exactly who gave me the 'right' to publically display and expose myself to anything? freedom of speech will continue to exist, though, as it seems to keep the sheep from revolting. laugh away your outrage and the human world can keep its steady course down the toilet. i am not saying censorship should or should not exist. i am saying that the issue is hardy black and white and to deliberately publish provocative material that may instigate violent behavior is, simply put, an a-hole thing to do.

[motherengine]

oh, and thank for the information about god not existing. i was on the fence about that.