My experience at RaptureReady

[c4ts]

Huh? Does that actually make sense to you?

Religion is an outgrowth of human fear. It has nothing to do with science.

Science is a method of looking at the world to determine the truth of how things work. It has nothing to do with religion.

They are not separate parts of one whole. Religious folk would like you to believe they are so they can glom off some of the respectability of science. But nothing in your paragraph above is true.

The only ones under a delusional state are those who choose religion.

I think Jefferson was referring to the close-minded state that accompanies forms of organized religion, something very relevant to RR.

 

[Iacchus]

ethics? derived from religion? Since when? Ethics is derived from humanity, I can point out many non-ethical things that derive from religion that religion claims is ethics, such as treating women as non-humans. I'm certainly not willing to accept the ethics coming out of religion.

Humanity? What do you mean humanity? Human beings aren't born ethical, they have to be taught. So where do ethics (morals, the difference between right and wrong) come from in the first place?

 

[RussDill]

Humanity? What do you mean humanity? Human beings aren't born ethical, they have to be taught. So where do ethics (morals, the difference between right and wrong) come from in the first place?

Much of ethics is genetic, other is tought from generation to generation. Much of this teaching does not revolve around religion, but much does. The ethics that are passed down specifically though religion are highly questionable though, such as the ethics of honor killing, the ethics of torturing people over to your beliefs, etc.

 

[Iacchus]

Refering to the united states as the 50 states its made up of is not a sweeping generalization. Saying that we all like apple pie is a sweeping generalization.

What I mean is having to refer to each state individually before addressing the United States as a whole.

I see you don't bother to refute anything I say. I might add that I do know one concrete thing about you, you are a backwards sexist. (re, thinking that women have no place in science and engineering)

Never said that. Actually in many ways women are more refreshing to work with than men, because they don't have all the ego problems. However, I do have a problem with being "coerced" into accepting a woman who behaves like a man (i.e., real masculine) as something normal, which it's not.

 

[c4ts]

Humanity? What do you mean humanity? Human beings aren't born ethical, they have to be taught. So where do ethics (morals, the difference between right and wrong) come from in the first place?

Humans may not be born ethical, but they are quite capable of figuring things out like "my tribe will survive better if we don't kill each other off." Morality is a tool used by human institutions such as law or civilization to insure survival. Just like any other tool, it had to be invented and refined. This is why morality itself can exceed the limits of your average human being.

 

[Iacchus]

I think Jefferson was referring to the close-minded state that accompanies forms of organized religion, something very relevant to RR.

Yes, I think you've identified the problem here as "organized religion."

 

[Iacchus]

Actually, relgion most likely existed before science, and many scientists do not participate in any religion, so you can have one without the other just fine. Also, many branches of science deal with human emotion and expression.

So basically you have two monolithic systems here, both vying for the attention of the masses.

Relgion is the opiate of the masses, sure its easier to control a population with the right religion, but its still a lie, and people still die needlessly because of religion (holy wars, honor killing, "faith healing", etc).

This is a generalized statement, and does little to address the purpose of religion. The problem isn't Religion. It's what people do with religion that's the problem.

Science does not distance itself from emotions, it attempts to study them along with human expression in great detail. Also, love, human expression, art, human emotion, none of these things require religion to exist. In fact, if anything, religion quashes their creativity to draw the same thing for 1500 years. Some religions even prohibited the drawing of human or animal figures.

How so? Emotions are considered irrational. And that's a no no to science.

 

[Iacchus]

Its an integral process of science to have all of its findings questioned/verified. Everything in science is already questioned boldly, its through this questioning that sceince advances

You mean like so it could build a better atomic bomb, and destroy masses of innocent people? Or, perhaps develop a more highly toxic compound than anthrax? So where are the ethics in this?

 

[Iacchus]

There is no mystery of the soul. There is the mystery of conciousness and the human brain, which science far from neglects, but actually does study in great detail.

This is purely the study of mechanics, not "the spirit" which transcends the mechanics.

Religous folk love to believe that atheists are just afraid of god. I think I, along with anyone else on the board, can assure you that that is simply not true.

Not the least bit afraid that they might be wrong?

 

[c4ts]

Not the least bit afraid that they might be wrong?

Some even say they would believe in God, if only it were logical.

 

[RussDill]

What I mean is having to refer to each state individually before addressing the United States as a whole.

ok, well, the 50 states are organized under one flag, one culture. This is not true for native americans.

Never said that. Actually in many ways women are more refreshing to work with than men, because they don't have all the ego problems. However, I do have a problem with being "coerced" into accepting a woman who behaves like a man (i.e., real masculine) as something normal, which it's not.

You said that a woman becomes a man if she is a scientist, and now say that you have a problem with women that "behave" like a man. You sound an awful lot like a sexist to me. What is a "masculine" behavior anyway, itching your crotch?

 

[RussDill]

So basically you have two monolithic systems here, both vying for the attention of the masses.

Neither science nor religion are monolithic. And science does not attempt to gain the attention of the masses.

This is a generalized statement, and does little to address the purpose of religion. The problem isn't Religion. It's what people do with religion that's the problem.

The problem is that when you tell a society to do something based on religion, they won't question. Religion cannot be question and even goes so far as to torture and excecute those that question it. That is wrong, anyone, doesn't matter if they are a priest, or whatever, shold be held accountable by their fellow man.

How so? Emotions are considered irrational. And that's a no no to science.

Since when does science consider emotions irrational?!?! Maybe you are confusing science considering conculusions reached based on emotions as being irrational.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

However, I do have a problem with being "coerced" into accepting a woman who behaves like a man (i.e., real masculine) as something normal, which it's not.

Interesting. Who is "coercing" you into "accepting" anyone regardless of how they "behave?"

By the way, would you care to provide your definition of "normal?"

 

[RussDill]

You mean like so it could build a better atomic bomb, and destroy masses of innocent people? Or, perhaps develop a more highly toxic compound than anthrax? So where are the ethics in this?

Lets say one day (completely out of conjecture), a nation of christian fundamentalists wishes to wipe every muslim off the face of the earth. Would it be ethical for muslim nations to use a better atomic bomb to defend themselves with? What if they used a toxic compound to defend themselves?

Ethical and humane advances in science are being made everyday, more than half of us would not be here today (not counting those of us who would not be here because our parents wouldn't be here) if not for the advances of science. Sure one can use knowledge for evil, but knowledge in itself is not evil.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Just curious, Iacchus, how do you feel about a man who behaves like a woman (i.e. real feminine)? (Maybe he's even a teacher or a nurse!) Is it normal or not?

 

[RussDill]

This is purely the study of mechanics, not "the spirit" which transcends the mechanics.

Spirit and soul both derive their meaning from words like breath and wind. Ancient people believed that you breathed in and out your spirit, and when you died, you just didn't breath it back in (expire). We now know that we breath in and out air, so to talk about such things is sillyness. We have no reason to believe that our entire sense of self is produced in the human brain. We have no evidence for anything beyond that nor any reason to believe there is anything beyond that.

Maybe if someone could give a reason other than ancient texts from people who believed your soul was your breath, science would care.

Not the least bit afraid that they might be wrong?

As I've said before, people in the scientific community seek out reasons that would show they are wrong. That's how nobel prizes are won.

 

[Iacchus]

ok, well, the 50 states are organized under one flag, one culture. This is not true for native americans.

Do you mean before their tribes were decimated by the United States Government? Besides, haven't they banded together in more recent times, and adopted a more "collective view."

You said that a woman becomes a man if she is a scientist, and now say that you have a problem with women that "behave" like a man. You sound an awful lot like a sexist to me. What is a "masculine" behavior anyway, itching your crotch?

I know why I said what I said. It was in response to someone else's baited question.

 

[Iacchus]

Neither science nor religion are monolithic.

Sure they are.

And science does not attempt to gain the attention of the masses.

Nonetheless the effect is the same.

The problem is that when you tell a society to do something based on religion, they won't question. Religion cannot be question and even goes so far as to torture and excecute those that question it. That is wrong, anyone, doesn't matter if they are a priest, or whatever, shold be held accountable by their fellow man.

Tell it to Joseph Stalin, or any other totalitarian dictator.

Since when does science consider emotions irrational?!?! Maybe you are confusing science considering conculusions reached based on emotions as being irrational.

Yes, but isn't this what science is all about, drawing conclusions? If so, doesn't it in effect "promote" the general "lack of" emotion? You know, as if it were somehow preferrential? This is what I mean by science taking itself too seriously.

 

[Iacchus]

Spirit and soul both derive their meaning from words like breath and wind. Ancient people believed that you breathed in and out your spirit, and when you died, you just didn't breath it back in (expire). We now know that we breath in and out air, so to talk about such things is sillyness. We have no reason to believe that our entire sense of self is produced in the human brain. We have no evidence for anything beyond that nor any reason to believe there is anything beyond that.

Yes "we," the scientific community.

Maybe if someone could give a reason other than ancient texts from people who believed your soul was your breath, science would care.

So, would you have me prove that I can talk to spirits?

As I've said before, people in the scientific community seek out reasons that would show they are wrong. That's how nobel prizes are won.

Maybe that's the wrong spirit then?

 

[RussDill]

Do you mean before their tribes were decimated by the United States Government? Besides, haven't they banded together in more recent times, and adopted a more "collective view."

at any point in time, and why do you claim that they've adopted a more "collective view"

I know why I said what I said. It was in response to someone else's baited question.

You took the bait quite handily. Why do you have a problem with women doing what they want, regardless of whether or not you feel they are "masculine" behaviors.