The things they do in the name of religion

[brgnorway]

Well, I for one thank God for easter time! Only one day more to work and then I have 4 days off!
Please tell me when science was to thank for hollidays

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

dito, and the bible itself is not my personal base of belief! The funny thing is that science SO FAR is incapable to proof that there IS NO SUCH THING AS GOD. And I thought science is deductive!!!

....For the 500th time.
It is not sciences job to disprove crazy assertions.
If you claim the moon is made of purple blancmange, YOU should prove it. NASA would not have to prove it wasn't because there is a better explanation.

[brgnorway]

We have a new FSPILOT - Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX!

[shinRaiden]

More clarifications. I think of "light" as RF-modulated photonic radiation in the visible spectrum, and "Light" as spiritual essence / energy / the force / whatever name you understand the same thing by. In that sense, "Light" came before the organization of the stars, and before "light" from those stars reached the earths.

Then again, as this earth is just a spek in eternity, it really doesn't work to fix a time period to a continuing process of creation. Via scientific telescopes we see light from stars 'born' bullions and bullions of years ago. That don't mean there aren't new ones today or tomorrow.

Furthermore, epochal processes of organization in a different stasis can change the flow process. If pre-fall Eden were in a state of suspended stasis, you could put stuff there in any order you want, after you have Eden first though.

As for delusional ramblings, you have not stated any qualifications to judge my experiences. Along with what Miles said elsewhere, there are real things that I have personally experienced that can not be evaluated via known scientific means, that are no less real. In one case, the scientific possiblity of an event was between march and mid-november of 2000. I was informed about it sometime between october and november of 1999. That is not possible according to your known and accepted toolset, but still happened.

You deliberately ignored what I said regarding my personal view of faith. How many people refused to believe Columbus when he argued for a round earth? How many people condemned Gaelieo for daring to say the world was not the physical center of the spatial universe, according to the accepted theory of the day?

While I believe that you are willfully ignorant of yourself and the 'whole' (as in complete) world around you, I can't compel you to do anything you don't want to. It's all up to you what you want to do.

[brgnorway]

Hmm.....I was just wondering - The title says "The things they do in the name of religion" . A rather common thing to claime is that various "crimes against humanity" has been done and legitimised by the above statement. True enough!
However, let's think about all of the crimes perpetrated in "the name of science" . There are quite a few of those and I'll start off with the medical science in german prison camps during WW2. Any other sugestions are welcome!

[Veovis]

Quote[/b] ]How would you tell someone who is convinced his underpants are inhabited by gnomes that they are not?

Are you suggesting shinRaiden has gnomes in his underpants? That would be a particularly disturbing development. I might even side with you.

Quote[/b] ]There is no reason to set your head on fire; doing so is not sensible.

I think comparing believing in God to setting my head on fire is a tad outrageous. Although it did provoke an amusing image.

Quote[/b] ]As I said before, give me an example of something you need religion to find out.

Hmm. I'm getting a bit concerned about you. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm not religious to prove or explain anything. 'Find out' is essentially the same thing. I don't care to repeat what I've posted three times already. How thick is your skull? Please be exact, I wouldn't want a number without at least five proven scientific theories supporting it.

Quote[/b] ]No there aren't. ***Name one.

I believe that I named three examples. If anybody can prove or disprove any of them I would be amazed. The earlier attempts to disprove God in this thread were not in the least bit adequate. (I'm going to regret saying this, because somebody will try)

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps I wasn't taking exception to those who leave their wacky ideas behind when involved in science? ***Although there are not many who can do that...

I think you'd be surprised. We just don't hear much of their opinion. Only extremists and extremely bored people post on these kind of topics.

[shinRaiden]

That was only a domestic issue, a liquidation of damaged property. If humans have no soul or other piece of external liability, and sub-humans are relegated to property assets, it's just a reduction of surplus inventory. From a logical rational point of view.

As for increased dating issues, the bible hints that for the first biblically recorded 2000 years, lifespans approaching 1000 years were not uncommon, perhaps the norm. If we take a more modern 100 year life span, you could adjust that 2000 years to 20000 years. Or, you have to account for a radically different environmental conditions to maintain a ~2000 year period. Either way, the bible, the gilgamesh legend, and the Veda's among others deal with that by implying that the evidence would have been washed away in the Flood epic.

But back to the general principle of foundational religious evaluation. The role of religion dogmatically is the study of the nature and purpose of the "Self" while science focuses on evaluating the world around us. These side trackings tend to add fuel to Baron's loose cannons.

I think where a lot of the trouble gets started is at the joiner "..because...". Everyone can agree that discussing things civily is 'good', but as soon as I interject "-Because-", that implies that that the action is only in reaction to a foundation, either of concious choice based on applied experience or imprinted instruction.

[brgnorway]

I believe the best would be if people had a more "culture relativistic" approach to the whole problem. What is true for me is true for me - and what is true for you is none of my business.

[shinRaiden]

I know no gnomes.

I'm still confused about how baron presumes that God is inside my feeble mind. If that were true, then all his works would be limited to within my mind, meaning that Baron is only a figment of my imagination. *That* makes my head spin.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

Are you suggesting shinRaiden has gnomes in his underpants? That would be a particularly disturbing development. I might even side with you.

Just answer the question.
It's an analogy. Its an equally ludicrous belief that someone might have. What would you do with this person?

Quote[/b] ]
I think comparing believing in God to setting my head on fire is a tad outrageous. Although it did provoke an amusing image.

I don't.

Quote[/b] ]Hmm. I'm getting a bit concerned about you. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm not religious to prove or explain anything. 'Find out' is essentially the same thing. I don't care to repeat what I've posted three times already. How thick is your skull? Please be exact, I wouldn't want a number without at least five proven scientific theories supporting it.

Maybe you aren't getting the point. What use is religion then? What is the usefulness of it? That is what I am asking.
And don't come this 'It makes people feel better' -it doesn't.

Quote[/b] ]I believe that I named three examples. If anybody can prove or disprove any of them I would be amazed.

DId you miss this part?

Quote[/b] ] SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS