Religions of Southperry

I retract my statements. You're right.

My personal view point on the whole belief system is that people don't actually think about religion any further than the big 3. It's do you believe in god and if you don't, getting flack from each answer. If you believe in god on the internet, you're an idiot, if you announce you're atheist in real life it's like you're a rebel with no respect. I can understand atheism, but what I don't understand is when atheists not only announce their belief but essentially talk down to those who aren't at some imaginary intellectual level as them. Oh you believe in god which means you don't understand basic science so you're an idiot!

And believe me I understand the other side too. For example at work when Gay marriage was being fought over in maryland, and there were protests, one of the woman were saying, I quote "It's not the states decision for this, they must answer to god and jesus in order to get forgiveness or acceptance, we as man don't have the power!"

Any other person and I would have shut them down then and there, but this woman helped me get my position at my job, I couldn't say anything and sometimes I regret it. None the less, I feel like in today's world people need to get off this archaic system, and understand that there's a bigger story out there than the one summarized with limited information.

I'm confident enough to say in our generation, we have grown passed the "personal" god perspective, but I'm sure we're all open minded enough to imagine an unorthodox method our creation which could be considered as god, I just don't like how atheists are so easy to close their mind to that possibility.

My personal view point on the whole belief system is that people don't actually think about religion any further than the big 3. It's do you believe in god and if you don't, getting flack from each answer. If you believe in god on the internet, you're an idiot, if you announce you're atheist in real life it's like you're a rebel with no respect. I can understand atheism, but what I don't understand is when atheists not only announce their belief but essentially talk down to those who aren't at some imaginary intellectual level as them. Oh you believe in god which means you don't understand basic science so you're an idiot!

The main gripe I have with overzealously religious people is that you can't argue with them; We don't even talk the same language. Even if you start quoting the Bible (not out of context) to make your case, they'd still manage to dismiss it.

I may be overly wishful and naive, but I believe that the type of atheists you're referring to are the suppressed kids living within religious settings all their childhoods. All they want is to get back to those people whom they could do nothing about.
Also, believe me when I say a good portion of the vocal atheists aren't actually intellectually superior. They also do us a disservice by putting science on a pedestal and making a religion out of it.
"I SAY NO JESUS BECAUSE BIG BANG."
Makes me wish I could punch things through the internet.

I'm a Atheist, I used to class myself as more of a militant atheist as I would go out of my way to challenge others beliefs. I still have to stop myself some times, Religion will soon be a thing of the past while I now respect others beliefs there is no place for religion as it is in a modern society - the wheels are turning and nothing short of a "act of god" will save Religion now. Italy just removed churches tax free benefit more and more children are growing up on the internet and are exposed to the amazing sceptical thinking that science provides.

nvm

I've been wondering with all the talk about god and the creation of all, where do you draw the line between god, a supernatural being and ____, a technological advanced civilization?

It seems that you are assuming that science and religion must contradict.

In religions current state yes. science can explain a great many things and the things that we are yet to understand will be explained in due time. Religion must step back and take the role of a fictitious belief or its followers will be classed as clinically insane. We don't allow people that believe pixies told them to commit mass murders to roam the streets.

Edit;

I've been wondering with all the talk about god and the creation of all, where do you draw the line between god, a supernatural being and ____, a technological advanced civilization?

That's a very interesting question the universe is just so immense that there is the possibility that there are being that if they where to visit us there would be some that would label them as being god like, but we shouldnt be bowing down and accepting them as out omnipotent leaders.

It seems that you are assuming that science and religion must contradict.

When has science benefited a religious belief?

In religions current state yes. science can explain a great many things and the things that we are yet to understand will be explained in due time. Religion must step back and take the role of a fictitious belief or its followers will be classed as clinically insane. We don't allow people that believe pixies told them to commit mass murders to roam the streets.

That's a rather big leap of faith, if you'd excuse the irony. We don't even have the slightest clue how much knowledge there is and how much of it we can amass. For all we know, we could be those prisoners deep under the cave playing shadow prediction really well without having any real knowledge.

That's a rather big leap of faith, if you'd excuse the irony. We don't even have the slightest clue how much knowledge there is and how much of it we can amass. For all we know, we could be those prisoners deep under the cave playing shadow prediction really well without having any real knowledge.

Yes, that's only the first stage (level) in that story the man is then removed from the chains to see that the fire is what makes the shadows and then is removed from the cave he eventually sees the sun the and relates it to the fire in the cave.

While I understand your point, in the past 50 years we have learned so much about the world around us and the universe we live in we learn more and more every day.

Yes, that's only the first stage (level) in that story the man is then removed from the chains to see that the fire is what makes the shadows and then is removed from the cave he eventually sees the sun the and relates it to the fire in the cave.

Which was achieved by philosophy (or some badass surface dweller that dragged him up, which corresponds to religion's source of knowledge: revelation), not science.

Which was achieved by philosophy (or some badass surface dweller that dragged him up, which corresponds to religion's source of knowledge: revelation), not science.

While Plato was a philosopher I would lean more to the side of critical thinking on the part of the chained man - that said that's pretty much what Philosophy and Science fall into, the relm of critical thinking.

While Plato was a philosopher I would lean more to the side of critical thinking on the part of the chained man - that said that's pretty much what Philosophy and Science fall into, the relm of critical thinking.

Partly yes. Science needs critical thinking to make sense (and make good sense) of its empirical data, it promotes critical thinking for this purpose. However, experiment is the soul of science. If you don't perform observable experiments to verify your theories, you're not doing science, however critically you may be thinking. On the other hand, if you don't give much thought at all to your experiments, you'll still be doing science, just bad science.

I have no idea how philosophically aware my Physics professor is, but he has on more than one occasion stressed that in science, knowledge is whatever we see happening and that science does not concern itself with essentialism.

So, if we want to encompass all of humanity's ability to obtain objective knowledge, like you said, we'd be talking about our critical thinking ability, yes. Though, that still doesn't give me any more confidence when I say human will obtain all the knowledge to explain everything, though. Besides, in a sense, we've always been able to explain most things, we just weren't accurate. Who's to say that we now are?

EDIT: To elaborate on the last point, instead of just jerking about it, I'd mention a video I was introduced to by devout atheists:

 Spoiler

[video=youtube;7ImvlS8PLIo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo[/video]

Near the end, he makes the point that our society, if put some billion years into the future, will do all the science we did today and come up with a picture of the universe which is entirely different from ours. And it's scientifically rigorous too. So, what's to say that our model of the universe is objectively correct if it is scientifically correct?

 Summary of his presentation on that idea

The universe is now determined to be accelerating its expansion, so at some point in the future, the universe will be expanding faster than the speed of light, therefore any observer will no longer see other galaxies when they look out there. The universe will be a static single galaxy in the midst of endless darkness.
And "we in the future" will have NO clue about the Big Bang since we won't be seeing cosmic radio waves or such evidence.

In religions current state yes. science can explain a great many things and the things that we are yet to understand will be explained in due time. Religion must step back and take the role of a fictitious belief or its followers will be classed as clinically insane. We don't allow people that believe pixies told them to commit mass murders to roam the streets.

You should read the Screwtape Letters. Gives a very different opinon of the relationship between science and religion - namely, that science helps man to ask the questions that lead to true soul-searching. Screwtape advises his protege that he should influence his "patient" away from science beyond a foolish misbelief that he actually knows a lot based on news stories and water cooler talk (in the same vein that someone will read a news article and think themself an expert on a subject).

Evangelical Christian right here.

Religion must step back and take the role of a fictitious belief or its followers will be classed as clinically insane.

No they won't. There is no such diagnosis as clinically insane.

Evangelical Christian right here.

No they won't. There is no such diagnosis as clinically insane.

Your belief intrigues me, how would you compare/distinguish between the Q's continuum and God?

-snip-

While that is a very interesting thought we are not billions of years in the future.

@maspan i'll Look into that thanks

Your belief intrigues me, how would you compare/distinguish between the Q's continuum and God?

I am also interested.

Your belief intrigues me, how would you compare/distinguish between the Q's continuum and God?

Accoring to my Trekkie knowledge, the "Qs" did not create the universe, as God allegedly did. There are probably others I can think of, shoot me a PM or something if you are interested.

nvm

Another question, since so many people only use religion as a moral compass with the bonus that you get some candy when you die by the dude that made the whole thing (sounds like a game "game over" screen with your score), whats the difference between religion and other type of beliefs that can be also used as a moral compass (liberalism? idk can't think of any right now)?