War on Religion?

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

Perhaps the Western War on Religion is dying down as we come to a keener understanding of the mysteries of both Science and Faith. 

there's a war on religion?  really?  do a few cranky atheists a war make, or have i been missing something?

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

'fear ov the turk' is too general for me to know where you're goïng with it.
those anti-jewish pogroms were launched by christians.
what's goïng on in Africa and India is more about replacing the local religions with christianity than about simply eradicating them.
catholics and protestants have been at each other's throats over trivial things since about five minutes after Martin Luther aired his grievances (for the first five minutes, they were at each other's throats over serious things).
erasing the old religions ov the celts and the norse was done in the name ov specifically christian progress.
i know nothing about the burning ov south american codices, so i've nothing to say on it.
i've never heard ov christians beïng expelled from the sciences.
the fundamentalist attack on the scientific establishment is exactly what it says on the tin.

what i see is christianity waging war on everyöne, including itself.  referring to that as a war ON religion is misleading at best.

[ronchamblin]

One might call it a war on religion, or a battle between the non-believer and the believer,

but I prefer to call it a war between truth and untruth,

a war between opinions based on science, logic, and reason, and opinions based on authority, tradition, or dogma ...

a war  between knowledge and ignorance,

a war between having peace or having war,

a war between having the good life or having continual suffering,

a war between encouraging hatred of the infidel or encouraging love and compassion toward all.   

[Demosthenes]

Science provides a method to disprove itself. It claims not answers, but questions. In religion, if you don't understand something, that's OK, God made it so... God is the truth. God is the reason... How can any rational person who claims knowledge of science be on the side of something that demands blind faith and offers no answers beyond the mystical? Baptists are worst of all main stream religions. Some of the most die hard litteralists I have ever met were bible thumping southern baptists.

I'm not saying a scientist can't be religious, and Im not saying being religious makes you ignorant, It just allows for it. Blind faith is a cop out, it removes curiosity from the human spirit, and if the human species never questioned its Gods we never would have advanced beyond the caves.

[BridgeTroll]

One might call it a war on religion, or a battle between the non-believer and the believer,

but I prefer to call it a war between truth and untruth,

a war between opinions based on science, logic, and reason, and opinions based on authority, tradition, or dogma ...

a war  between knowledge and ignorance,

a war between having peace or having war,

a war between having the good life or having continual suffering,

a war between encouraging hatred of the infidel or encouraging love and compassion toward all.   

You need to open your mind a little Ron.  Your black and white list is simply off base... And no one would classify me as a religious person.

I would submit that non believers certainly do not corner the market in the areas of "truth"... or "peace"... or "knowledge".  If you claim to be honest in this argument of yours then you need to fairly and honestly acknowledge the failings and accomplishments of both groupings.  I take no issue with your beliefs... but know... they are yours... and you certainly have come nowhere close to providing evidence to sway many to your point of view.

Of course I am now kicking myself for putting down the popcorn and beer and joining the discussion.  Hopefully the nausea goes away...

[Cheshire Cat]

Stephen Dare: But I dont mean political war, perhaps I wasnt very clear in my meaning.  I just mean the general idea that there are two opposing groups of knowledge and world view in the Western viewpoint.  Science on the one hand, and Religion on the other.

From my perspective what is underneath the conflict in this and other discussions on this board (and globally) regarding "religion" is in fact a "conflict of beliefs and viewpoints" that fall both within and outside of what one might classically define as religion.  The origin of this conflict is very basic to the human experience.  We want to know the why's of our existence, explain our origins here on earth in a way that makes sense to us in the face of a perceived reality that in fact cannot be quantified in a way that all humanity can agree upon. 

The human experience on this planet encompasses a blip on the radar of all that is in this universe and beyond. The few years that we each walk the earth as flesh are infinitesimal in the scheme of what is eternal.  We understand through our experience as humans that all things born of flesh must and will die.  It is this reality that is the drive behind our need as human beings to know what exactly we are both in the flesh and beyond.  For some folks the belief in current scientific understandings is truth in it's entirety. For human beings pure science indicates that between conception and death there is human consciousness and life, beyond that oblivion.  Science would indicate that the entirety of our experiences are driven by what our brain perceives to be going on both within and outside of us.  This scientific view is what many atheist's choose to justify their own beliefs.  We are simply organic creatures, end of story.  For agnostics the view is one of having no view one way or the other about religion.  For others, it is impossible to accept that the experience of being a human being is confined to what is happening in the flesh and rather is an experience that goes far beyond the physical realities we are currently living.  This has resulted in a multitude and unending variety of religious and spiritual beliefs across the globe.  The question then becomes who is right?  Those who feel that intellect and science reigns, those who don't care one way or the other or those who hold to some sort of spiritual or religious belief?  Does it really matter?  Regardless of what we individually hold to be true, the full reality of who and what we are is not defined by what exists between conception and death.  We as human beings are energy and consciousness expressed through flesh.  That energy is part and parcel of all that is the universe, even when the flesh expires the energy remains and as such so remains the stuff of which we are formed.  We are all eternal in that way.

So is the question really one of whether or not there is a force in this universe that organizes universal energy in a conscious way, further what is that organizing force?  For non believers it is all science.  For believers it is beyond science and we exist by higher design.  There is no problem really in either view.  Arguments, hatred, wars and all the negative outcroppings of human interaction erupt when a person or group of persons attempt to impose their "beliefs" upon others as the only reasonable and acceptable truth.  There is a balance to be had in human existence and we will only find that balance in our external environment when we find it first internally.  That is where the real war is being raged. 



   

[Cheshire Cat]

One might call it a war on religion, or a battle between the non-believer and the believer,

but I prefer to call it a war between truth and untruth,

a war between opinions based on science, logic, and reason, and opinions based on authority, tradition, or dogma ...

a war  between knowledge and ignorance,

a war between having peace or having war,

a war between having the good life or having continual suffering,

a war between encouraging hatred of the infidel or encouraging love and compassion toward all.   

Ron, you really need to stop with your big bad self.  lol  You have already stated your agenda repeatedly in numerous threads across this forum.   That agenda is to "awaken" all of humanity to the science of our existence according to your own beliefs.  What you seem to fail to realize is that your manner of debate, discussion etc comes across as arrogant and condescending and that bombastic rhetoric framed by implied intellectual superiority has worn very, very thin.  You are very much like the religious zealots you so readily condemn in your fervent beliefs and views.  The only difference is that your "religion" is science and you are looking to convert others to your views. 

[Demosthenes]

Its impossible to effectively argue with someone who claims to know all of the answers of the universe because they believe on one man made deity, or another. Personally, I am rather enjoying Rons scorched earth approach, almost as much as I love seeing Dares tongue wagging defense of openly homophonic and anti-humanist organizations like FBC.

[Cheshire Cat]

Its impossible to effectively argue with someone who claims to know all of the answers of the universe because they believe on one man made deity, or another. Personally, I am rather enjoying Rons scorched earth approach, almost as much as I love seeing Dares tongue wagging defense of openly homophonic and anti-humanist organizations like FBC.

I get what you are saying about the back and forth of the conversation. lol  Can you clarify for me if you are saying that you can't argue or debate someone who firmly believes in a religious deity?  If so could not the same statement be made about a person who firmly believes that science holds all the answers?  Not a challenge, just a question. 

[Demosthenes]

I have said it before, science is not an answer. Its a method of questioning.

Lets use global warming as an example. Often those who believe in global environmantal change are accused of being theistic in their approach to discovering the cause of change. Rather ironically, most of these accusations are made by evangelical conservatives.

Any human can observe that the environment is always changing. Observing this change, and then asking the hows and whys are not, in themselves a religion. Taking observable info, and trying to associate causes and effects is the exact opposite of religion.

Religion not only asks for, but demands that its follower accept the religons doctrine as the one and only true answer, while offering only mystical stories and fables. See that beautiful sunset? Thats not caused by the rotation of the earth, the conditions of the atmosphere, the wildfires to the west, or a volcano eruption... nope, God did that.

Worst yet, many religions ask its followers to DENY observable data. Dinosaur bones? Whats a dinosaur, just another one of gods creatures who sailed on the arc with Noah. Millions of years of sediment and bones? Nope, earth is only 6000 years old.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2000/04/03/dinosaurs-on-noahs-ark

[Demosthenes]

http://bit.ly/153SaVk

[Demosthenes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3XEDwvqcoo

[Demosthenes]

BTW, interesting thing to note, if you listen to the young earth, Dinosaur/Man walked together sermons, you will hear the same theme, not all types of dinosaurs had to be represented on the arc. Only a few were needed to repopulate the earth, not two of each type, but just two of the species...

My question is, if there are 700 published species of dinosaur, if you only have 4 on the arc, and they repopulate and create all of the various kinds of dinosaurs afterwards... how do you explain the vast array of dinosaurs? Perhaps they.... evolved?

[Cheshire Cat]

Demosthenes, I see your point and the distinction you are making between science and religion and respect it.  I agree with the notion that many forms of religion not only demand belief and adherence to particular doctrines but would add that many have historically used fear in order to force people to believe in a specific god, gods or other supreme being. This has resulted in conflict, murder and war throughout the world which continues to this day, all of it stemming from the demand that people believe one doctrine, whatever that might be.  In the same way I acknowledge that science can be a way of questioning our existence and the universe in which we dwell, I also see that science cannot accurately answer all that is asked of it.  Further, does science even know what to ask and how to measure the possibility of a divine influence in our beings and lives?  I think not.

For me personally I have no need to draw others to my personal perception or beliefs about life as a human being and rather understand that my personal views and feelings need be accepted by no one else.  I am not a fan however of scorched earth discussions.  lol   I have no problem with folks who are atheist, agnostic or religious as long as they do not try and impose their beliefs on me or on the entirety of the global community.  In that way I can also say that I think ignoring what science has been able to prove about our earth, how old it is, evolution and humanity is purely folly and goes against good reason.  For me there is a deep understanding and knowing about my part in this universe as a human being and consciousness that cannot be measured but simply understood in my inner being.  I accept we are beings of flesh and bone with the ability to think and reason. I know we are more than that however.  We are a part of something much greater which is the force that created us and our world.  For me I can readily marry the concept of science with the personal understanding that the "essence" of our being survives death and remains conscious and knowing.  How that "essence" continues is up for discussion and debate.  I personally think there is more than one right answer, in fact there are many valid answers 

[Cheshire Cat]

Good posts Stephen.  The examples you give clearly show the great diversity of perceptions that can be found in the tenants of a variety of religious disciplines each one thinking their interpretation of our beginnings and universe is the correct one.   

I smiled at the statement about an apology being owed to Darwin.  I believe he had it "mostly" right as it regards evolution on what we know as our earth and those dwelling upon it.  It's worth noting that there are those in evolutionary research who have now identified at least five different types of human beings predating us and that comes from information that best interprets scientific research regarding the most recent millions of years of our planets existence. Not all of them fit with the ape to human theory.  It is also interesting to ponder the reality that there are some learned folks who have determined that the world has suffered more than a single mass destruction of life even before the destruction of the dinosaurs. Were there other type of intelligent and reasoning beings here before?  There is also the growing belief that another advanced intelligence possibly extraterrestrial, tampered with the human genome.  Interesting to ponder considering that 90% of our DNA structure is not understood by science.  What might we discover about ourselves when that mystery is unlocked?