Should We Tolerate Religion?

Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
FeFiFoFUM said:
Where is the evidence that science is correct about evolution, or the creation of the universe.... I KNOW religion can not be proven, but science cant explain shit either. the big bang theory? lol seriously? or is that theory now outdated and replaced with a better one that still... doesnt prove shit.
Click to expand...
You seem to think science comes up with a conclusion and then goes looking for evidence. Science only attempts to explain evidence which has already been found. Science will make predictions based on that evidence, and then try to falsify that prediction, but the underlying evidence must first be there for a theory to even be formed. Countless papers have been published with evidence of evolution and the big bang. You also seem to to think it's a bad thing for a theory to be replaced if it becomes outdated. Would you rather science stubbornly hold onto old ideas and ignore new evidence? With advancements in technology comes new information, and science often has to change it's conclusions based on the evidence that new information brings.

Also, what is peer evaluation when the majority of the people evaluating the subject already think the same way in the first place?
Hell... I could get 1000 police officers and govt officials who are experts in their field to agree that cannabis is a dangerous substance that supports terrorism. but we all know thats bullshit right.
Click to expand...
You could find a bunch of experts to agree cannabis is bad, but it's partly through independent peer review that we know many of the dangers reported on marijuana are myths. You said it yourself, we all know it's bullshit. We, the peers, through independent review, have found that claims of marijuana being dangerous are false. Peer review in action.

Once science gets a result, it tries exhaustively to make that result false. Part of this process involves having independent researchers reproduce and interpret your results.

As far as the topic, should we tolerate religion, absolutely! Should we tolerate religion effecting our lives on an intrusive personal level if we don't believe, absolutely not! If you are not part of the club you shouldn't be subjected to the clubs rules.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
weed4cash said:
I put up with the religion of evolution.
Click to expand...
That's an insanely stupid statement.

And that's correcting for the fact that it was made by someone who believes in an invisible man in the sky and a divine zombie.

I see many churches in everyday life, but I have never seen one dedicated to the Theory of Evolution.

There is no St. Darwin's Cathedral.

No Scopes Monkey Temple.

Not even a Church of the Quivering Primordial Goo.
 
Stoner.Barbie

Stoner.Barbie

Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic said:
Which story?

The one about the jolly elf and his eight flying reindeer?

Or the less believable one about God raping Mary; producing Jesse; who was executed as a heretic, then became a zombie for 40 days before levitating into the clouds?
Click to expand...
the one about the zombie, 5000 years ago the egyptions used the same story. so in essence 3000 years later the story was revived, put in a book and changed the names.
 
TaoWolf

TaoWolf

Active Member
mountainSpliff said:
Should we be tolerating religion when it is the cause of war and ignorance?

Religions dont tolerate each other or anyone outside them.

Why should we tolerate religion?
Click to expand...
How can you literally not tolerate religion? Offend them and use peer pressure to sway them? Censor all religious texts? Lock up people who think religious thoughts? Go to war against them? March them off to gas chambers and incinerate them?

What's the plan? =P
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic said:
And once again, who decides what is valid?

The rabbit hole is there, but you refuse to see it.


Actually, it does not.

We do not live in a vacuum. History is happening all around us.

Do you honesly think Germans in the in the 1930's said to themselves, "Yea, we're Nazis now. Awesome!"


Every process takes time. You cannot simply snap your fingers and expect perfection.
Click to expand...
I don't understand by what you mean "who determines what is valid". The evidence is either valid or not. Either the temperature measured at a certain location is accurate, or it is not. Either the polar ice cap is melting, or it's not. The only thing up for debate is whether the method you used to obtain that measurement is accurate and not biased. I think what you are getting at is who determines if the conclusion drawn from the evidence is valid? I think it's premature on a lot of issues, but not on others. Does a 2*F increase in average temperature over this region prove global warming? I dont know, but eventually you will get enough data to know one way or another. I don't care what you personally believe in, you cannot deny all the evidence for evolution. Nobody specifically determines the evidence for evolution is "valid". It stands on its own merit.

How does it not prove my point? If something is correctable it must not currently be correct. The mere fact that the situation is in need of correcting means it is wrong. Somehow the powers that be decided all that bullshit you mentioned was a good idea. It was tolerated to such an extent that it was given preferential treatment. We don't live in a vaccuum; we live in an irrational minded world tainted with superstitious beliefs.

Expecting people to think rationally for themselves and not blindly hate based on the words in the bible is not exactly "perfection". Every process takes time, but if it wasn't for religion a lot of those processes wouldn't even need to be gone through. Unless you think people would have a deep hatred of homosexuals without religious influence? I'm basing my argument on that these laws were based on religion, if not directly, then through a bias of the lawmaker.
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Unless you think people would have a deep hatred of homosexuals without religious influence? I'm basing my argument on that these laws were based on religion, if not directly, then through a bias of the lawmaker.
Click to expand...
I think a big part of homophobia comes from not understanding. We fear what we can not understand, and who can understand homosexuality? It doesn't make sense + it's repulsive to think about = easy to hate. Religion just offers justification IMO.
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
I think a big part of homophobia comes from not understanding. We fear what we can not understand, and who can understand homosexuality? It doesn't make sense + it's repulsive to think about = easy to hate. Religion just offers justification IMO.
Click to expand...
I know it does, but would those people that were making laws against sodomy have made the law without religious justification? Would they have just used some other excuse to make it illegal? And why would people accept such a law without religious bias of their own? I still tend to think if there was NO religious influence saying "This is wrong!" then it would not have been so illegal.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
guy incognito said:
I don't understand by what you mean "who determines what is valid". The evidence is either valid or not. Either the temperature measured at a certain location is accurate, or it is not. Either the polar ice cap is melting, or it's not. The only thing up for debate is whether the method you used to obtain that measurement is accurate and not biased. I think what you are getting at is who determines if the conclusion drawn from the evidence is valid? I think it's premature on a lot of issues, but not on others. Does a 2*F increase in average temperature over this region prove global warming? I dont know, but eventually you will get enough data to know one way or another. I don't care what you personally believe in, you cannot deny all the evidence for evolution. Nobody specifically determines the evidence for evolution is "valid". It stands on its own merit.

How does it not prove my point? If something is correctable it must not currently be correct. The mere fact that the situation is in need of correcting means it is wrong. Somehow the powers that be decided all that bullshit you mentioned was a good idea. It was tolerated to such an extent that it was given preferential treatment. We don't live in a vaccuum; we live in an irrational minded world tainted with superstitious beliefs.

Expecting people to think rationally for themselves and not blindly hate based on the words in the bible is not exactly "perfection". Every process takes time, but if it wasn't for religion a lot of those processes wouldn't even need to be gone through. Unless you think people would have a deep hatred of homosexuals without religious influence? I'm basing my argument on that these laws were based on religion, if not directly, then through a bias of the lawmaker.
Click to expand...
Western civilization owes its existence to the Church. During the Dark Ages, the Church was the government. Most of the written history we have from that era is derived from Church documents. It was the Church that was responsible for the expulsion of the Muslim invasion of Europe. As the Protestant Reformation and the Renaissance took hold, the church began to lose its hold on the reins of power as regions became Nationalized and governments in the form of Monarchies began to wrest influence away from the Church. It did not happen all at once, and we are still seeing the residual effects even today. These correctable issues to which I refer are examples.

The church did not create marriage, but learned very early that by establishing rules for it and controlling marriage, the Church benefited. Now a couple may be married by a Justice of the Peace in the cheap showiness of nature and the Church can't say a damn thing about it. As far as homosexuality is concerned, in any society beliefs and practices that are unusual or odd are shunned or openly discouraged. This is not a function of the Church, regardless of whether the Church takes a stand on a particular issue or not is irrelevant; instead it is more an indictment of the human condition. As we progress, as we continue to move through history; we come to understand that just because a particular practice may not be our cup of tea, as long as it does not infringe on our rights it should be tolerated.

That is what I mean by correctable. These residual issues which go against the Constitution can and should be addressed. Slavery existed when the Constitution was ratified by the states in 1787 in spite of the Bill of Rights because slaves were considered property, not citizens. It took over eighty years to correct that misinterpretation of the Constitution. And that did not abolish slavery because it exists even today across the globe. But it did make it illegal in the United States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top