Jump to content

Why do religious people keep trying to invent a conflict between belief and Science?


Ihcisphysicist
 Share

Recommended Posts

Strange: You claim that "Although modern psychology is (usually) a science, the work of Freud and Jung was definitely not scientific."

 

I find it odd that you mention them both in the same breath in this regard. Are you aware that Freud broke his working relationship with Jung on the basis that Jung, in his opinion, getting too mystical and unscientific.

 

Certainly Freud openly claimed that he was taking a scientific approach towards psychology, which is a questionable undertaking even today. Indeed, given that he was pioneering the field, we can hardly criticize his efforts to take a scientific approach anymore than we can say that Aristotle was not scientific in terms of what we know.

 

"In accordance with his medical training, Freud confirmed that the knowledge that scholars possessed about the brain did not yet allow psychoanalysis to be based on biological foundations." from "Neuroscience-based Cognitive Therapy by Scrimali, p. 14

 

Indeed, various neuroscientists have suggested that many of his ideas have been confirmed, in one way or another, by modern science, though the exact nature and extent of such confirmation is open to interpretation. For example:

 

"Researchers believe measurement of brain waves confirm Sigmund Freud’s contention that anxiety disorders such as phobias are the result of unconscious conflict."

http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/06/18/neuroscience-study-supports-freuds-view-of-anxiety/40283.html

 

Jung is a bit of a mixed bag in this respect, but Freud definitely attempted to be scientific, and did the best he could in terms of the developments of science at the time, as he himself pointed out.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by disarray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Certainly Freud openly claimed that he was taking a scientific approach towards psychology

 

 

I have never seen any evidence that he took a scientific approach. (What he claimed is irrelevant.)

 

 

, which is a questionable undertaking even today.

 

I don't see why. I have read of some excellent studies. Obviously, there is still some lower quality as work, but I see no reason why modern psychology shouldn't be considered a solid science.

 

 

 

Indeed, various neuroscientists have suggested that many of his ideas have been confirmed, in one way or another, by modern science, though the exact nature and extent of such confirmation is open to interpretation.

 

Lucky guesses. <shrug>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange: Again, one cannot expect Freud to meet the degree of rigor that is expected today, but he was a medical doctor (not a bohemian poet), and he attempted to use the scientific methodologies at his disposal at the time to pioneer a new field. The degree to which he succeeded in being scientific is neither entirely accepted or denied today:

"Freud, his theories, and his treatment of his patients were controversial in 19th century Vienna, and remain hotly debated today. Freud's ideas are often discussed and analyzed as works of literature and general culture in addition to continuing debate around them as scientific and medical treatises." https://www.psychologistworld.com/psychologists/freud_1.php

"psychoanalysts themselves would undoubtedly consider psychoanalysis to be a science, [though] many critics would disagree...[ironically] psychoanalysis is a scientific theory due to the fact that it is falsifiable and has, in fact, been proven false because other methods of treatment have been proven effective.” http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/beystehner.html

 

In any case, I, personally, would not claim that Freud was reasonably successful in his attempts to investigate mental phenomena in a scientific manner, only that he made an attempt, albeit half-hearted, to do so.

 

When you say that he was not scientific, one might understand this to mean that his methods were not generally considered later to be as scientific as he presumed them to be, which I would agree with. But if you say that he was not scientific in that he did not make any attempt to collect data and analyze it in what he thought was a semi-scientific method to do so, then I would not agree with you. So there is no real conflict in our assessment of him in this regard. Don’t know why this is an issue, particularly, but I when I, for example, cite Freud, I do not do so as if I expect readers to treat his work as scientific fact, but merely to anchor and thus clarify some concept that I am trying to delineate myself.

 

Freud’s influence on modern thought has been immense, but I think that it is generally understood that neither his work nor his methodologies are considered to be scientific, particularly by modern standards. In particular, he was attempting to further apply Darwinian evolutionary concepts to the field of psychology, but his token efforts to be scientific were derailed by personal efforts to set forth an unpopular ‘worldview’ at any cost.

 

Let’s face it, even evolutionary psychology, with all its research methodology and statistical analyses is often dismissed today as pop science, and I do not agree that psychology is definitely considered to be a solid science today, e.g.,

“[with respect of psychology's scientific status,]science cannot be redefined to such an extent that it no longer obeys time-honored criteria like testability and reproducibility” http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/is-psychology-a-e2809creale2809d-science-does-it-really-matter/

“Psychologist Timothy D. Wilson, a professor at the University of Virginia, expressed resentment over the fact that most scientists don't consider his field a real science.” http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713

“considerable problems arise from psychological science's tendency to overcommunicate mechanistic concepts based on weak and often unreplicated (or unreplicable) data that do not resonate with the everyday experiences of the general public or the rigor of other scholarly fields.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26348335

 

Again, I, personally, was not making claims one way or the other, but merely pointing out that it is a matter of controversy.

 

As to matter of his findings being in some ways supported by modern neuroscientific research in a variety of ways (and I can provide a dozen articles that support this), I see no reason, apart from perhaps personal bias, to dismiss such evidences as “Lucky guesses” when neuroscientists themselves make such claims. Admittedly, not all neuroscientists support such claims, but the fact that many do and have written articles about it suggests to me that it is not a black and white matter, and certainly not one to be dismissed as just random chance.

 

Again, I am not stating that any such correspondence between Freud’s theories and the findings of modern neuroscience is always valid, or always peer reviewed, or always accepted by peers. I merely note that some scientists draw that conclusion. Indeed, it is interesting in this regard, that Freud himself suggested that he hoped that someday neuroscientists would do research that would in some way support any of his theories.

 

Straw man arguments aside, I think that it is ironic that you are making an issue of the, admittedly, unscientific nature of his work, since Freud was one of the great critics of religion in general, and of monotheism in particular (on the basis that it was merely an expression of biological drives, e.g., survival instinct, need for security, unresolved family dynamics, etc.). I say "ironic" because the thrust of this discussion is about the reasons that religious people try to invent conflicts between belief and science, and Freud (be he very scientific or not in practice) would certainly be able to give you reasons for that.

Edited by disarray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have still seen no evidence that Freud used anything approaching science.

 

 

As to matter of his findings being in some ways supported by modern neuroscientific research in a variety of ways (and I can provide a dozen articles that support this), I see no reason, apart from perhaps personal bias, to dismiss such evidences as “Lucky guesses” when neuroscientists themselves make such claims.

 

We get a lot of people presenting their ... ahem ... "personal theories" of physics on these forums. They make various claims about what science will discover in future (based on no science at all). If some of those guesses turn out to be correct, it doesn't show that their theory had any scientific basis, just that they were lucky.

 

All that neuroscience's confirmation of some of Freud's ideas shows is that you can learn something about human nature by (informally) looking at the way people behave. Not exactly surprising. And not evidence of him "doing sceince".

 

I'm quite sure that many other common ideas about the mind have been confirmed by science. And I am certain that, like most of Freud's ideas, many popular ideas will have been shown to be misconceptions.

 

 

Indeed, it is interesting in this regard, that Freud himself suggested that he hoped that someday neuroscientists would do research that would in some way support any of his theories.

 

And I guess he would be disappointed to find that such studies, as well as those taking a scientific approach to psychology, show most of his ideas to be wrong.


 

Straw man arguments aside, I think that it is ironic that you are making an issue of the, admittedly, unscientific nature of his work, since Freud was one of the great critics of religion in general, and of monotheism in particular (on the basis that it was merely an expression of biological drives, e.g., survival instinct, need for security, unresolved family dynamics, etc.).

 

You think I should approve of his methods because of his conclusions?

 

I disagree completely. I will criticise religious people who use poor logic to attack science. But I will also criticise scientific people who use poor logic to attack religion. For example, even if religion has an origin in evolution/survival that is no reason to criticise it. That is like saying people shouldn't like music or fall in love because they have an evolutionary basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I will also criticise scientific people who use poor logic to attack religion. For example, even if religion has an origin in evolution/survival that is no reason to criticise it. That is like saying people shouldn't like music or fall in love because they have an evolutionary basis.

Mmm...this appears to be aimed at something that I argued in a previous debate. There is an important difference though. Most people recognise and accept that our love for music has its roots in primitive origins, but very few religious people would accept that religions are merely "organised" superstitions and likely spandrels of evolution. Religious people, by and large, feel very strongly that their religions were divinely inspired, in fact (most) religions would be pretty baseless if they were not...which was the premise of my argument.

Edited by Memammal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmm...this appears to be aimed at something that I argued in a previous debate. There is an important difference though. Most people recognise and accept that our love for music has its roots in primitive origins, but very few religious people would accept that religions are merely "organised" superstitions and likely spandrels of evolution. Religious people, by and large, feel very strongly that their religions were divinely inspired, in fact (most) religions would be pretty baseless if they were not...which was the premise of my argument.

 

I don't see how that is relevant. It seems just as irrational to say they shouldn't have those beliefs as to say someone shouldn't like a particular type of music.

 

Of course, if someone says "this music tells me that general relativity is wrong" then I would have something to say about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange states that, "even if religion has an origin in evolution/survival that is no reason to criticize it. That is like saying people shouldn't like music or fall in love because they have an evolutionary basis." And then, "It seems just as irrational to say they shouldn't have those beliefs as to say someone shouldn't like a particular type of music."

 

I am with Memammal on this one. It is not a matter of saying that the they shouldn't have beliefs, but it does raise the issue as to whether the beliefs are valid. Pointing to the fact that something might have an evolutionary basis doesn't always or even very often suggest that it is not valid. It has been argued, for example, that the fear of snakes and spiders has evolved because those who avoided them in general, avoided the poisonous ones, and lived to pass on what eventually became an instinct...and the instinct is valid, despite being, in practice, rather indiscriminate.

 

But religion is, I think, an unusual case. Religious people are generally unwilling (rightly or wrongly) to accept the notion that the desire to believe in god(s), for example, is just an instinctive desire to feel protected. (E.g. evolutionary psychologists, building on Freud's concept of religion as a projection of ones parents, argue that women tend to be more actively religious because they feel generally more vulnerable than men, particularly if pregnant perhaps, and thus, create an imaginary figure of a protective god to help them get through life). Thus, you can see that a religious person would be reluctant to reject such an explanation, because it basically tends to reduce religion in general, and a person's faith in particular to nothing more than wishful thinking (though evolutionary psychologists don't generally come right out and say that).

 

However, if you tell a drummer that his or her skills are based on evolved instincts (e.g., in relation to mating, hunting, or weather controlling rituals) that go back thousands of years, music is not depreciated at all. It is still as moving, if not moreso, than ever.

Edited by disarray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, if you tell a drummer that his or her skills are based on evolved instincts (e.g., in relation to mating, hunting, or weather controlling rituals) that go back thousands of years, music is not depreciated at all. It is still as moving, if not moreso, than ever.

 

Many people (Keats, for example) would disagree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange. Keats? Perhaps a quote might be in order as I have no idea what you are referring to.

I have still seen no evidence that Freud used anything approaching science.

 

Freud kept track of the effect that various treatments had on patients. As I said, even evolutionary psychologists such as David Buss and David Schmidt who use rigorous scientific methods to validate their claims are often dismissed as being unscientific....so it is a matter of opinion as to just what constitutes science when dealing with the vagaries of psychology. I see no point in going around the mulberry bush any more on this issue.

 

We get a lot of people presenting their ... ahem ... "personal theories" of physics on these forums. They make various claims about what science will discover in future (based on no science at all). If some of those guesses turn out to be correct, it doesn't show that their theory had any scientific basis, just that they were lucky.

 

I don't follow. If said amateur physicists wrote extensively as to what they believed, and it turned out that their idea of, say causality were confirmed, I see no reason to derogate their rudimentary efforts. Indeed, one could say of many pioneers of science that they made a lot of blunders...they key idea is that they posed various questions and opened up various issues. Neuroscientists, for example, find correlative areas in the brain for Freud's theory that there is a biological basis for cognitive conflict, e.g., areas of the brain that, often without our being aware, conflict with and try to suppress other desires. I would say that Freud was making a pretty good educated guess with regards to many issues (e.g., the defense mechanisms have withstood the test of time and are standard tools in many a modern day therapists toolbox) given what was known at the time..I see no need to begrudgingly belittle people's insights, be they amateur physicists with pet theories or professionals starting up a new field.

 

All that neuroscience's confirmation of some of Freud's ideas shows is that you can learn something about human nature by (informally) looking at the way people behave. Not exactly surprising. And not evidence of him "doing science".

 

Again, I have acknowledged that his efforts to be scientific were compromised by the lack of information he had at the time as to how to conduct psychological research as well as his own professional-political agenda, so i don't know why you keep bringing that up. No, neuroscientists have done a lot more than just show that he looked at the way people behaved. In particular, they have shown parallels between his superego-ego-id construct and neuroscience, however valid or invalid such parallels might be, e.g., the evolutionary model of the triune brain. Sounds like you are just off handedly throwing out criticisms as if just shooting in the dark here without referring to anything specific in the literature.

 

I'm quite sure that many other common ideas about the mind have been confirmed by science. And I am certain that, like most of Freud's ideas, many popular ideas will have been shown to be misconceptions.

 

Perhaps you could elaborate on what "common ideas" you had in mind. Of course, Freud made many claims that we find inane today. But again, Freud's originality has made him one of the most influential thinkers of the century, so I think your efforts to summarily dismiss seem rather strange.

 

And I guess he would be disappointed to find that such studies, as well as those taking a scientific approach to psychology, show most of his ideas to be wrong.

 

No, but he seemed to be aware of which of his ideas would most likely be confirmed in the future.

 

You think I should approve of his methods because of his conclusions?

 

Again, didn't say that.

 

 

Edited by disarray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how that is relevant. It seems just as irrational to say they shouldn't have those beliefs as to say someone shouldn't like a particular type of music.

I am a bit lost for words too... Referring specifically to the monotheistic religions, surely the question as to whether any of them was actually inspired by the relevant God in question, in stead of being superstitious folklore, is relevant. Take away the divine origins of these religions and they fall flat. The same "rationality" applies to the belief that the first two humans committed the original sin that would cast the entire human race to eternal hell unless saved by the grace and sacrifice of the son of God. If evolution shows that Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans, or that humans do not have a unique "sinful nature" opposed to other animals, that particular doctrine (central to Christianity) again falls flat. Why not use knowledge to debunk superstitions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention that evolutionary theory in general rubs fundamentalists/literalists/creationists the wrong way, to say the least: Actually it brings their whole world view crumbling down like the walls of Jericho.

Edited by disarray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Strange. Keats? Perhaps a quote might be in order as I have no idea what you are referring to.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamia_(poem)

I am a bit lost for words too... Referring specifically to the monotheistic religions, surely the question as to whether any of them was actually inspired by the relevant God in question, in stead of being superstitious folklore, is relevant.

 

But it is purely a matter of belief. You aren't going to change what some believes, or the sort of music they like, by pointing to the possible evolutionary origins.

 

 

Take away the divine origins of these religions and they fall flat.

 

But you can't take that away from people who believe it.

 

Not to mention that evolutionary theory in general rubs fundamentalists/literalists/creationists the wrong way, to say the least:

 

There is a lot more to religion than those people. Perhaps this is a US thing. Those people exist in such tiny numbers outside of the US (I have never, to my knowledge, met one) that it just isn't a major issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention that evolutionary theory in general rubs fundamentalists/literalists/creationists the wrong way, to say the least: Actually it brings their whole world view crumbling down like the walls of Jericho.

That is part of the problem...the fact that religious bigots simply refuse to accept the science behind evolution and/or an old universe/earth. As a result affected families, communities and societies are ignorant of these facts and left without any option but to follow traditions. There are millions of Christians being born and bred on the false doctrine of original sin and not because they ever had an informed choice, but just because of the fact that they were brought up in a Christian environment. Ditto for Muslims, Judaists, etc. Consider the downsides of these culturally aligned- and in some cases very conservative religions...women being oppressed, "forced" circumcision, and on the more fundamentalist side of the spectrum there are young men blowing up people with suicide vests, or flying into skyscrapers. Should one just turn a blind eye, or even condone outdated traditional religious practices/beliefs with the kind of knowledge at our disposal..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, l believe in deism . I think this is the best explanation how evolution theory does still purify every lie they stated on religions. Beliefs have belonged to person and they are not usually for open minded people. Because there are many differences between beliefs and science. The only thing is still same for each item they made by wise leaders of their tribes. You could realize this from holy bibles and other religion books. Through to centuries, religions have found less important and unmeaningful from it followers as inventions taken more place than superstition. In this century the certain number of peoples are looking for in the way of being rich while a small number of wasting their time in church at every Sunday or other holy places (mosque ). The technology will terminate every last remaining effect of superstition on people life. People should believe whatever they want as long as they are not able to turn it out to be a threat for rest of people. The last worldwide attack which carried out by ısıs in my city İstanbul at Atatürk international airport. The attack resulted in 45 kills and more than half of those been wounded. Few peoples are still in an emergency. Actually, we have been used to live in case of a curfew that has been going since July 2015. That was the worst sample of how three maniacs far would go to gained their access to the heaven by killing so many innocent people. What we have done the deserve this ?So who will pay for this ? What caution we do have to take against Islamic extremists as long as we did in same thing at 500 years ago against crusaders ( After Constantinople had conquered by part of crusaders they were looted in large swath of the city most of people had killed in followed days. They killed Christians in case of ruling the city.) who had no different from ısıs or other terrorist organization. l wish l could see beautiful and peacefull days in my country and rest of the world when all bad effects of religion are completely removed from the earth. l know it is too long for read to this but thanks for interesting and greetings from Turkey.

Edited by pac89
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, l believe in deism . I think this is the best explanation how evolution theory does still purify every lie they stated on religions. Beliefs have belonged to person and they are not usually for open minded people. Because there are many differences between beliefs and science. The only thing is still same for each item they made by wise leaders of their tribes. You could realize this from holy bibles and other religion books. Through to centuries, religions have found less important and unmeaningful from it followers as inventions taken more place than superstition. In this century the certain number of peoples are looking for in the way of being rich while a small number of wasting their time in church at every Sunday or other holy places (mosque ). The technology will terminate every last remaining effect of superstition on people life. People should believe whatever they want as long as they are not able to turn it out to be a threat for rest of people. The last worldwide attack which carried out by ısıs in my city İstanbul at Atatürk international airport. The attack resulted in 45 kills and more than half of those been wounded. Few peoples are still in an emergency. Actually, we have been used to live in case of a curfew that has been going since July 2015. That was the worst sample of how three maniacs far would go to gained their access to the heaven by killing so many innocent people. What we have done the deserve this ?So who will pay for this ? What caution we do have to take against Islamic extremists as long as we did in same thing at 500 years ago against crusaders ( After Constantinople had conquered by part of crusaders they were looted in large swath of the city most of people had killed in followed days. They killed Christians in case of ruling the city.) who had no different from ısıs or other terrorist organization. l wish l could see beautiful and peacefull days in my country and rest of the world when all bad effects of religion are completely removed from the earth. l know it is too long for read to this but thanks for interesting and greetings from Turkey.

 

 

I very much wish we all could get beautiful and peaceful days, as long as people think they have the right to force others to believe the same way they do it is unlikely we will see and end to the violence. We must continue to be vigilant and stand up for the rights of the individual as long as those rights do not impinge on the rights of anyone else.

 

It is a complex issue, respecting the rights of others seems to be difficult idea to grasp for many people. Most holy books assert that everyone must be converted to that particular flavor of theism. It is a problem we must get past as a people, as a civilization, I often have doubts it will wever happen...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

That is part of the problem...the fact that religious bigots simply refuse to accept the science behind evolution and/or an old universe/earth. As a result affected families, communities and societies are ignorant of these facts and left without any option but to follow traditions. There are millions of Christians being born and bred on the false doctrine of original sin and not because they ever had an informed choice, but just because of the fact that they were brought up in a Christian environment. Ditto for Muslims, Judaists, etc. Consider the downsides of these culturally aligned- and in some cases very conservative religions...women being oppressed, "forced" circumcision, and on the more fundamentalist side of the spectrum there are young men blowing up people with suicide vests, or flying into skyscrapers. Should one just turn a blind eye, or even condone outdated traditional religious practices/beliefs with the kind of knowledge at our disposal..?

I, the religious bigot would like to make a statement. I have been gone for 3 weeks and spent two of those n Brazil helping the poor starving people there. A christian mission trip, so I'm sure your going to point out all the wrongs in that. Anyways, back on topic. Christians always have an option. If they didnt, then most of the would would be christian.

And since its OBVIOUSLY christians running around in suicide vests. And flying headfirst into sky scrapers. You wouldnt possibly be profiling anybody there could you? Muslim christian Hindu. Your a religist. Or something like that. Like racist, but for religion. Your profiling all of us religious bigots on what you believe we are like.

 

Also, why couldn't Adam and eve be the first humans? Your gunna throw in evolution, but if there was a God, and he did make them, does evolution say that's not possible? No where in the bible does it say anything about evolution. Doesn't say its not there. Doesn't say it is.

 

As for downsides, isn't circumscision healthy? And while I have to agree that some religions are bad, I don't feel christianity is one of them.

 

Also, moontanman, one of the religions that doesn't force everyone to join their religion, is Christianity. Of course somebody's gunna argue against that, but oh well, it true, and I'll proved it if you don't believe me. The Bible is against human anger. It talks about kindness and understanding and helping others. Then some people come in and try to turn it into a demon religion.

Edited by Raider5678
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's OBVIOUSLY Christians who are trying to legislate who can use what bathroom based on their assigned gender at birth. And who try to push their specific version of creationism in the science classroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, the religious bigot would like to make a statement. I have been gone for 3 weeks and spent two of those n Brazil helping the poor starving people there. A christian mission trip, so I'm sure your going to point out all the wrongs in that.

You don't have to be a religious bigot to help starving people...and yes, I have a problem with missionary work as 9/10 times it boils down to an attempt to convert vulnerable people into a preferred religion.

 

And since its OBVIOUSLY christians running around in suicide vests. And flying headfirst into sky scrapers. You wouldnt possibly be profiling anybody there could you? Muslim christian Hindu. Your a religist. Or something like that. Like racist, but for religion. Your profiling all of us religious bigots on what you believe we are like.

No, I was not stereotyping all religious people as being religious bigots. Read my post again. At the same time, to say that the Christian religion is not guilty of similar acts is a lie. Over the years many evil deeds have been committed in the name of Christianity, even under the roof of the church...extremist Christian sects have been performing acts of mass murder...the USA and its allies under the leadership of GW Bush, a Christian bigot, have invaded Iraq under false pretences...just to name a few examples.

 

Also, why couldn't Adam and eve be the first humans? Your gunna throw in evolution, but if there was a God, and he did make them, does evolution say that's not possible? No where in the bible does it say anything about evolution. Doesn't say its not there. Doesn't say it is.

Oh gosh. You really need to read more. Biblical Adam & Eve walked this earth around 6,000 years ago. At that time humanity was spread over the entire world already, each group with its own (albeit primitive) languages, cultures and superstitions. The Neolithic revolution has taken place approx. 6,000 years prior to Biblical Adam & Eve, in fact the wheel might have already been used when Adam & Eve arrived on the scene. Genetically our species can be traced back to around 200,000 ago, a dating which is also supported by the oldest remains of homo sapiens. The Genesis creation story is a very far cry from evolutionary biology. So no, it simply does not add up.

 

As for downsides, isn't circumscision healthy?

Whether circumcision is healthy or not has nothing to do with the argument. One is not necessarily healthier than the other. In fact some primitive circumcision procedures are downright dangerous. Many young people die in developing countries as a result of traditional circumcision practices. The problem lies with the fact that it is an important religious tradition and as such expected to be performed on (unwilling) babies.

 

And while I have to agree that some religions are bad, I don't feel christianity is one of them.

Most Christians seem to feel that why. I am often astounded by how they consider themselves to be better people than all the rest. But then I suppose most religions feel that way about themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to be a religious bigot to help starving people...and yes, I have a problem with missionary work as 9/10 times it boils down to an attempt to convert vulnerable people into a preferred religion.

 

 

No, I was not stereotyping all religious people as being religious bigots. Read my post again. At the same time, to say that the Christian religion is not guilty of similar acts is a lie. Over the years many evil deeds have been committed in the name of Christianity, even under the roof of the church...extremist Christian sects have been performing acts of mass murder...the USA and its allies under the leadership of GW Bush, a Christian bigot, have invaded Iraq under false pretences...just to name a few examples.

 

 

Oh gosh. You really need to read more. Biblical Adam & Eve walked this earth around 6,000 years ago. At that time humanity was spread over the entire world already, each group with its own (albeit primitive) languages, cultures and superstitions. The Neolithic revolution has taken place approx. 6,000 years prior to Biblical Adam & Eve, in fact the wheel might have already been used when Adam & Eve arrived on the scene. Genetically our species can be traced back to around 200,000 ago, a dating which is also supported by the oldest remains of homo sapiens. The Genesis creation story is a very far cry from evolutionary biology. So no, it simply does not add up.

 

 

Whether circumcision is healthy or not has nothing to do with the argument. One is not necessarily healthier than the other. In fact some primitive circumcision procedures are downright dangerous. Many young people die in developing countries as a result of traditional circumcision practices. The problem lies with the fact that it is an important religious tradition and as such expected to be performed on (unwilling) babies.

 

 

Most Christians seem to feel that why. I am often astounded by how they consider themselves to be better people than all the rest. But then I suppose most religions feel that way about themselves.

A large number of evil acts have been committed by atheist extremists. Lots of evil hints have been done by none religious people. What I'm saying is that our religion doesn't tell us to murder everyone, or torture them in the name of our god. In the name of atheism lots of evil has been done too.

 

6000 years... Where the heck did you pull that number out. Please note that in the bible, when listing names,father son ect, they often skip quite a few generations depending on the long line of ancestors, and the ones named were usually the "memorable" ones. This changed through out the bible.

 

People die for many reasons. Some government laws people die over for no reason in other countries. Just because people die from something doesn't make it evil.

 

Also, quick question. Why are the native Americans even humans? After being separated for lon periods of time aren't species suppose to become 2 different species? This is an actual question BTW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A large number of evil acts have been committed by atheist extremists. Lots of evil hints have been done by none religious people. "

yes, but it wasn't done because they were atheist was it? That's the difference.religion tells people to be evil. Atheism doesn't.

 

"Please note that in the bible, when listing names,father son ect, they often skip quite a few generations depending on the long line of ancestors, and the ones named were usually the "memorable" ones. This changed through out the bible."

 

Where the heck did you pull that number out?

Or did someone just make it up because otherwise the whole Bible looks a bit silly.

 

"Also, quick question. Why are the native Americans even humans? After being separated for lon periods of time aren't species suppose to become 2 different species? This is an actual question BTW. "

No strong evolutionary pressure to change and not nearly long enough.

This is an obvious answer BTW.

 

Your "actual question" didn't raise any issue with evolution: it just showed that you don't understand it.

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A large number of evil acts have been committed by atheist extremists. Lots of evil hints have been done by none religious people. "

yes, but it wasn't done because they were atheist was it? That's the difference.religion tells people to be evil. Atheism doesn't.

 

"Please note that in the bible, when listing names,father son ect, they often skip quite a few generations depending on the long line of ancestors, and the ones named were usually the "memorable" ones. This changed through out the bible."

 

Where the heck did you pull that number out?

Or did someone just make it up because otherwise the whole Bible looks a bit silly.

 

"Also, quick question. Why are the native Americans even humans? After being separated for lon periods of time aren't species suppose to become 2 different species? This is an actual question BTW. "

No strong evolutionary pressure to change and not nearly long enough.

This is an obvious answer BTW.

 

Your "actual question" didn't raise any issue with evolution: it showed that you don't understand it.

That was my point. Atheism doesn't encourage murder, but tell me where the bible encourages mass murder as memammal seems to think.

 

So somebody makes up a random number, applies it to the bible, and for that reason it isn't true. Hopefully, you don't see any logic in that memammal. I'm sure you do though.

 

And I know zip about evolution. Never studied it.. I have the jist of it and that's it, so it was a ligitament question. Thanks for the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I know zip about evolution. Never studied it.. I have the jist of it and that's it, [snip]

 

I just wanted to point out this conflict, per the OP. Do you know zip about evolution, or do you have the gist of it? Since it can't be both, I would suggest that you only think you know what evolution is basically about, what you refer to as the gist, and from that you're trying to reconcile your beliefs. I would further suggest your "gist" is wrong in many aspects, and this lack of knowledge of the subject has warped your interest in learning more.

 

Ignorance is an easily curable disease, but it's often paired with a stubborn willfulness that makes people reject the medicine that could help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to point out this conflict, per the OP. Do you know zip about evolution, or do you have the gist of it? Since it can't be both, I would suggest that you only think you know what evolution is basically about, what you refer to as the gist, and from that you're trying to reconcile your beliefs. I would further suggest your "gist" is wrong in many aspects, and this lack of knowledge of the subject has warped your interest in learning more.

 

Ignorance is an easily curable disease, but it's often paired with a stubborn willfulness that makes people reject the medicine that could help.

I've currently been learning about the big bang theory.
First they claim half the stories in the bible are made up, then they claim Gods a murderer.

 

Your lack of knowledge of the bible is getting annoying, read about all the people God has saved. And if you had ever even once read the new testament, you would learn extremely quickly that you should put people to death anymore, and rather, tell them they did wrong, hope they don't do it again, and let them go. You can't honestly tell me every little thing in the bible is more then all the kings and queens of the entire earth killing for stupid reasons? According to most atheist, there was no big flood, so can you really count when you can pick and choose? So, was there a big flood or not? If you take that away, 80% of the deaths that the one article lists is wiped away.

 

http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/hitler-was-a-christian/

Because its sooooo obvious this link isn't biased.

 

http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/about/

And that no false info is in this.

 

http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/god-is-impossible/

And that he proved something that cannot be proven..... Wonderful. No science in this BTW. Mostly personal opinion. Read on.

 

Having read quite a bit, I find this dude is taking almost everything out of context.

The bible says Pink unicorns are real!!!!

The bible actually says, there is no way pink unicorns are real.

BTW, bible never talks about pink unicorns in my knowledge, this is an example.

Also, multiple times he outright lies about stuff. To give an example, he says god told someone to sacrifice his daughter. In reality, the guy said he would sacrifice the first living thing he saw when he returned home. Also, there's a lot of controversy over the meaning of sacrifice there.

Edited by Raider5678
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I answered your question. I have read the bible. Flood stories are quite common since most cultures and settlements arose near water sources. You also seem to be confusing me with someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.