I'm currently taking a "Survey of the Sciences" course in school and my textbook stated the following about the comparison of science and religion...(the section is titled "Science, Art and Religion")...

"Science and religion have similarities also. For example, both are
motivated by curiosity about the natural world. Both have great impact
on society. Science, for example, leads to useful technological
innovations, while religion provides a foothold for many social
services. Science and religion, however, are basically different.
Science is concerned with understanding the physical universe, whereas religion is concerned with spiritual matters, such as belief and faith. Scientific truth is a matter of public scrutiny; religion is a deeply
personal matter. In these respects, science and religion are as
different as apples and oranges and do not contradict each other.

Ultimately, in learning more about science, art, and religion, we find
that they are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they run parallel to each
other like strings on a guitar, each resonating at its own frequency.
When played together, the chord they produce can be a chord of profound richness. Science, art, and religion can work very well together, which
is why we should never feel forced into choosing one over the other.

That science and religion can work very well together deserves special emphasis. When we study the nature of light later in this book, we will
treat light first as w wave and then as a particle. At first, waves and particles may appear contradictory. You might believe that light can be
only one or the other, and that you must choose between them. What
scientists have discovered, however, is that light waves and light
particles complement each other, and that, when these two ideas are
taken together, they provide a deeper understanding of light. In a
similar way, it is mainly people who are either uninformed or
misinformed about the deeper natures of both science and religion who
feel that they must choose between believing in religion and believing
in science. Unless one has a shallow understanding of either or both,
there is no contradiction in being religious in one's belief system and
being scientific in one's understanding of the natural world.(*) What
your religious beliefs are, and whether you have nay religion at all,
are of course private matters for you to decide. The tangling up of
science and religion has led to many unfortunate arguments over the
course of human history.

(*)Of course, this does not apply to certain extremists who steadfastly
assert that one cannot embrace both their brand of religion and science."

This section is preceded by a section stating that philosophical,
religious and supernatural questions lie outside of the realm of science
and that sciences asks how, art asks who, and religion asks why...

thoughts?

Source: Hewitt, Lyons, Suchocki, Yeh. "Conceptual Integrated Science".
Pearson Addison Wesley. 2007 p. 7"

This textbook was written by professors from City College of San
Francisco (Hewitt), CSU Sacramento (Lyons), St. Michael's College
(Suchocki), and UC San Francisco (Yeh) and peer reviewed by 80 different professors from various colleges and universities across the country.

--
Rosemary R. Ryan email - sn0w0wl(at)aol(dot)com Yahoo ID - lil_am_i
AIM - sn0w0wl MySpace - sn0w0wl Facebook - sn0w0wl

...Let the smiting begin...


...Evil doer...Name - Alazir class - Necromancer race - half elf
home - Beggar's Court, Freeport

---
■ Synchronet ■ Roughneck BBS - theroughnecks.net - Powered by Tits & Ass!

Re: Interesting take on Science and Religion
By: sn0w0wl to dove.religion on Mon Dec 07 2009 07:21 pm

That science and religion can work very well together deserves special emphasis.

That is a laugh. Religion has been undermining science since its incarnation.

...similar way, it is mainly people who are either uninformed or
misinformed about the deeper natures of both science and religion who
feel that they must choose between believing in religion and believing
in science. Unless one has a shallow understanding of either or both,
there is no contradiction in being religious in one's belief system and being scientific in one's understanding of the natural world.(*) What
your religious beliefs are, and whether you have nay religion at all,
are of course private matters for you to decide. The tangling up of
science and religion has led to many unfortunate arguments over the
course of human history.

I can't believe this hogwash is found in a science book. For a complete rebutal to this, one need only open a few pages of The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins.

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

nightcrawler wrote:

Re: Interesting take on Science and Religion
By: sn0w0wl to dove.religion on Mon Dec 07 2009 07:21 pm

That science and religion can work very well together deserves special emphasis.

That is a laugh. Religion has been undermining science since its incarnation.

And science hasn't been trying to undermine and destroy religious faith?
There are zealots on both sides...doesn't make either one right...

...similar way, it is mainly people who are either uninformed or
misinformed about the deeper natures of both science and religion who
feel that they must choose between believing in religion and believing
in science. Unless one has a shallow understanding of either or both, there is no contradiction in being religious in one's belief system and being scientific in one's understanding of the natural world.(*) What
your religious beliefs are, and whether you have nay religion at all,
are of course private matters for you to decide. The tangling up of science and religion has led to many unfortunate arguments over the
course of human history.

I can't believe this hogwash is found in a science book.

Believe it cause it is....check the reference... :-)

For a complete rebutal to this, one need only open a few pages of The God Delusion, by Richard
Dawkins.

only if you are willing to accept the word of an admitted atheist who,
based on video interviews that I've seen of him, has made it his mission
in life to rid the world of religious faith...I have no problem with his
being an atheist but I do have a problem with him as a one-sided researcher...re-read the post...neutrality is supposed to rule the day
in research, not agenda (from either side)...

btw...apparently you missed the asterisk comment....you seem to fit that "extremist" category (as does Dawkins).

--
Rosemary R. Ryan email - sn0w0wl(at)aol(dot)com Yahoo ID - lil_am_i
AIM - sn0w0wl MySpace - sn0w0wl Facebook - sn0w0wl

...Evil doer...Name - Alazir class - Necromancer race - half elf
home - Beggar's Court, Freeport

---
■ Synchronet ■ Roughneck BBS - theroughnecks.net - Powered by Tits & Ass!

sn0w0wl heard from nightcrawler about Interesting take on Scien on 12-08-09

...similar way, it is mainly people who are either uninformed or
misinformed about the deeper natures of both science and religion who
feel that they must choose between believing in religion and believing
in science. Unless one has a shallow understanding of either or both, there is no contradiction in being religious in one's belief system and being scientific in one's understanding of the natural world.(*) What
your religious beliefs are, and whether you have nay religion at all,
are of course private matters for you to decide. The tangling up of science and religion has led to many unfortunate arguments over the
course of human history.

I can't believe this hogwash is found in a science book. For a complete rebuta
to this, one need only open a few pages of The God Delusion, by Richard n>Dawkins.

Funny how someone's hogwash can be another person's truth. I think a lot of this
stuff comes down to brain wiring.

Everything we are and see and do all came from a tiny dot smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. Who or what could possibly pull that off?

Having an openess to both relgion and science allows me the freedom to not have
to choose one over the other. It allows me to NOT HAVE TO make sure that both agree without questioning one another. It allows me to THINK without FEAR. And IF there is a God, then science can go a long way to expose characteristics about that creator.



-Curt
--- * QWKBack 2.0 * 32bit Windows
---
...Deep down everyone's a Ferengi
■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET

Curt wrote:

I can't believe this hogwash is found in a science book. For a complete rebuta
to this, one need only open a few pages of The God Delusion, by Richard n>Dawkins.

Funny how someone's hogwash can be another person's truth. I think a lot of this
stuff comes down to brain wiring.

Everything we are and see and do all came from a tiny dot smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. Who or what could possibly pull that off?

Having an openess to both relgion and science allows me the freedom to not have
to choose one over the other. It allows me to NOT HAVE TO make sure that both
agree without questioning one another. It allows me to THINK without FEAR. And
IF there is a God, then science can go a long way to expose characteristics about that creator.

I think that's the point of what the authors are trying to say...it's
not just one or the other, it's not one is better than the other...it's
more that they both have merits and faults and, depending on your
(generically speaking) mindset, they are not opposed, just different
ways of looking at the same thing...one figures out the box and the
other looks at the possibilities beyond the box...

all it takes is a willingness to be open to the idea that they can work together...

just my opinion though...course I'm not an extremist...

--
Rosemary R. Ryan email - sn0w0wl(at)aol(dot)com Yahoo ID - lil_am_i
AIM - sn0w0wl MySpace - sn0w0wl Facebook - sn0w0wl

...Evil doer...Name - Slikia class - shadowknight race - dark elf
home - Long Shadow Alley, Freeport

---
■ Synchronet ■ Roughneck BBS - theroughnecks.net - Powered by Tits & Ass!

nightcrawler heard from sn0w0wl about Re: Interesting take on S on 12-08-09 s>nightcrawler wrote:

Re: Interesting take on Science and Religion
By: sn0w0wl to dove.religion on Mon Dec 07 2009 07:21 pm

That science and religion can work very well together deserves special s>> > emphasis.

That is a laugh. Religion has been undermining science since its incarnation

And science hasn't been trying to undermine and destroy religious faith? s>There are zealots on both sides...doesn't make either one right...

Yeah, it's OK for Dawkins to do it to religion, but not for the Vatican to do it
to science....the double standard on both sides is exactly what your quote from
the survey book talks about.

I have no problem with his
being an atheist but I do have a problem with him as a one-sided s>researcher...re-read the post...neutrality is supposed to rule the day
in research, not agenda (from either side)...

Well said.

btw...apparently you missed the asterisk comment....you seem to fit that s>"extremist" category (as does Dawkins).

Agreed.


-Curt
--- * QWKBack 2.0 * 32bit Windows
---
...I spilled spot remover on my dog and now he's gone
■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET

Re: Re: Interesting take on Scien
By: sn0w0wl to Curt on Thu Dec 10 2009 12:00 am

just my opinion though...course I'm not an extremist...

No, it sounds like you are a moderate. According to Sam Harris, moderates are the most problematic of all:

The Problem with Religious Moderates

We can no longer afford the luxury of political correctness. When religion causes violence, its root claims must be challenged.

BY: Sam Harris
While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don't like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. This is not a new form of faith, or even a new species of scriptural exegesis; it is simply a capitulation to a variety of all-too-human interests that have nothing, in principle, to do with God.

Unless the core dogmas of faith are called into question-i.e., that we know there is a God, and that we know what he wants from us-religious moderation will do nothing to lead us out of the wilderness.

The benignity of most religious moderates does not suggest that religious faith is anything more sublime than a desperate marriage of hope and ignorance, nor does it guarantee that there is not a terrible price to be paid for limiting the scope of reason in our dealings with other human beings. Religious moderation, insofar as it represents an attempt to hold on to what is still serviceable in orthodox religion, closes the door to more sophisticated approaches to spirituality, ethics, and the building of strong communities.

Religious moderates seem to believe that what we need is not radical insight and innovation in these areas but a mere dilution of Iron Age philosophy. Rather than bring the full force of our creativity and rationality to bear on the problems of ethics, social cohesion, and even spiritual experience, moderates merely ask that we relax our standards of adherence to ancient superstitions and taboos, while otherwise maintaining a belief system that was passed down to us from men and women whose lives were simply ravaged by their basic ignorance about the world. In what other sphere of life is such subservience to tradition acceptable? Medicine? Engineering? Not even politics suffers the anachronism that still dominates our thinking about ethical values and spiritual experience.
Imagine that we could revive a well-educated Christian of the fourteenth century. The man would prove to be a total ignoramus, except on matters of faith. His beliefs about geography, astronomy, and medicine would embarrass even a child, but he would know more or less everything there is to know about God. Though he would be considered a fool to think that the earth is flat, or that trepanning constitutes a wise medical intervention, his religious ideas would still be beyond reproach. There are two explanations for this: either we perfected our religious understanding of the world a millennium ago-while our knowledge on all other fronts was still hopelessly inchoate-or religion, being the mere maintenance of dogma, is one area of discourse that does not admit of progress. We will see that there is much to recommend the latter view.

With each passing year, do our religious beliefs conserve more and more of the data of human experience? If religion addresses a genuine sphere of understanding and human necessity, then it should be susceptible to progress; its doctrines should become more useful, rather than less. Progress in religion, as in other fields, would have to be a matter of present inquiry, not the mere reiteration of past doctrine. Whatever is true now should be discoverable now, and describable in terms that are not an outright affront to the rest of what we know about the world. By this measure, the entire project of religion seems perfectly backward. It cannot survive the changes that have come over us-culturally, technologically, and even ethically. Otherwise, there are few reasons to believe that we will survive it.

Moderates do not want to kill anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word "God" as though we knew what we were talking about. And they do not want anything too critical said about people who really believe in the God of their fathers, because tolerance, perhaps above all else, is sacred. To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world-to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish-is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it. But we can no longer afford the luxury of such political correctness. We must finally recognize the price we are paying to maintain the iconography of our ignorance. "

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

Re: Re: Interesting take on S
By: Curt to sn0w0wl on Wed Dec 09 2009 02:04 pm

And science hasn't been trying to undermine and destroy religious faith? s>There are zealots on both sides...doesn't make either one right...

Yeah, it's OK for Dawkins to do it to religion, but not for the Vatican to d to science....the double standard on both sides is exactly what your quote f the survey book talks about.

Can you give examples. What has the Vatican said about science that has any merit? That condoms give you HIV? Not only is that not scientific, it is downright deadly.

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

nightcrawler wrote:

Re: Re: Interesting take on Scien
By: sn0w0wl to Curt on Thu Dec 10 2009 12:00 am

just my opinion though...course I'm not an extremist...

No, it sounds like you are a moderate. According to Sam Harris, moderates are the most problematic of all:

I'm not a moderate in anything...political beliefs, religious beliefs,
or anything else...my husband can attest to that...

nice of you to label me though..good try but you missed...

The Problem with Religious Moderates

We can no longer afford the luxury of political correctness. When religion causes violence, its root claims must be challenged.

<snip>

Religion, in and of itself, does not cause violence...fanatics that
interpret their religious beliefs to fit their own goals and ambitions
cause violence...

the muslim terrorists are following their own interpretation of their "religion" just as the catholics and christians of way back when were following their interpretation of their "religion"...doesn't make either
one right nor does it condemn either religions core principles...judging
the whole by the few in this sense is as ridiculous as judging all conservatives as evil and all liberals as communists...



--
Rosemary R. Ryan email - sn0w0wl(at)aol(dot)com;
sn0w0wl70(at)gmail(dot)com Yahoo ID - lil_am_i AIM - sn0w0wl MySpace - sn0w0wl Facebook - Rosemary Razo-Ryan

...Evil doer...Name - Alazir class - Necromancer race - half elf
home - Beggar's Court, Freeport

---
■ Synchronet ■ Roughneck BBS - theroughnecks.net - Powered by Tits & Ass!

Re: Re: Interesting take on Scien
By: sn0w0wl to nightcrawler on Mon Dec 14 2009 09:50 pm

I'm not a moderate in anything...political beliefs, religious beliefs,
or anything else...my husband can attest to that...

Sorry, but you don't really say what you believe or don't believe, so it is left to speculation. I was going by your vocal mannerisms, which seem to fit the moderate definition.

Religion, in and of itself, does not cause violence...fanatics that interpret their religious beliefs to fit their own goals and ambitions
cause violence...

Assuming it is open to interpretation. Most of the Bible or Koran can't be taken any other way but literal. Consider the following passages:

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

To say these passages can not and do not cause violence is ignorant to the utmost degree. And if you would like to say that these passages should not be taken literally and are open to interpretion, consider the following:

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20 NAB)

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

Re: Re: Interesting take on Scien
By: sn0w0wl to nightcrawler on Mon Dec 14 2009 09:50 pm

the muslim terrorists are following their own interpretation of their "religion" just as the catholics and christians of way back when were following their interpretation of their "religion"...doesn't make either one right nor does it condemn either religions core principles...judging the whole by the few in this sense is as ridiculous as judging all conservatives as evil and all liberals as communists...

Hah you reminded me of this time I was abroad. I was traveling in Europe, where they don't really care much about blatantly discriminating/profiling. At the airport, all the middle eastern looking people were sectioned off from everyone else to undergo enhanced screening techniques. Hell, I felt safer. To hell with political correctness when safety is on the line. That lunatic at Fort Hood that shot all those deploying soldiers raised a bunch of red flags that were ignored because people didn't want to seem like bigots. Oops.

esc(montereybbs/demonic/mimic)

---
■ Synchronet ■ :: montereybbs.com ::

Re: Re: Interesting take on Scien
By: esc to sn0w0wl on Tue Dec 15 2009 11:00 pm

Hah you reminded me of this time I was abroad. I was traveling in Europe, where they don't really care much about blatantly discriminating/profiling. the airport, all the middle eastern looking people were sectioned off from everyone else to undergo enhanced screening techniques. Hell, I felt safer. To hell with political correctness when safety is on the line. That lunatic Fort Hood that shot all those deploying soldiers raised a bunch of red flags that were ignored because people didn't want to seem like bigots. Oops.

That is the point I was trying to get across; when public safety is a concern, we can no longer afford to be politicaly correct insofar as religion matters are concerned. I have no problem if people want to believe what ever myth they want, so long as they keep it to themselves and it causes no harm. Sadly, this just isn't the case any more, as religious fundamentalism would appear to be on the rise (not just Muslims, but Christians alike); how often do we open our news papers to a story of another child's death cause by the parents religious ignorance? Well once is often, and more than that should not be tolerated.

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

Re: Re: Interesting take on Scien
By: nightcrawler to esc on Fri Dec 18 2009 01:49 pm

That is the point I was trying to get across; when public safety is a concer we can no longer afford to be politicaly correct insofar as religion matters are concerned. I have no problem if people want to believe what ever myth th want, so long as they keep it to themselves and it causes no harm. Sadly, th just isn't the case any more, as religious fundamentalism would appear to be the rise (not just Muslims, but Christians alike); how often do we open our news papers to a story of another child's death cause by the parents religio ignorance? Well once is often, and more than that should not be tolerated.

I honestly think that one day there will be a tangible argument of rationality vs faith.

Sorry if that offends anyone, I know someone is bound to be pissed and have a retort, it's not a personal insult. Just my opinion. I don't care to try and convince someone of it or argue about it, so... that's where I stand. :)

esc(montereybbs/demonic/mimic)

---
■ Synchronet ■ :: montereybbs.com ::

Curt heard from nightcrawler about Re: Interesting take on S on 12-10-09

the survey book talks about.

Can you give examples.

Can I give examples of non-thiests making dogmatic statements about faith and God and religion? Are you serious? You may agree with the quote below. But wether you do or don't misses the point of this entire thread.


"Since ancient times, the philosophers' secret has always been this: we know that God does not exist, or, at least, if he does, he's utterly indifferent to our individual affairs--but we can't let the rabble know that; it's the fear of
God, the threat of divine punishment and the promise of divine reward, that keeps in line those too unsophisticated to work out questions of morality on their own."

-ROBERT J. SAWYER, Calculating God







-Curt
--- * QWKBack 2.0 * 32bit Windows
---
...If the majority can take my rights today, then they can vote away
■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET

nightcrawler heard from esc about Re: Interesting take on S on 12-18-09

I honestly think that one day there will be a tangible argument of rationality
vs faith.

Sorry if that offends anyone, I know someone is bound to be pissed and have a e>retort, it's not a personal insult. Just my opinion. I don't care to try and
convince someone of it or argue about it, so... that's where I stand. :)

There won't be such an argument made because ratioanality and faith are not mutually exclusive.

I think there is too much to be ignored. AA and thier 12 steps to sobriety come
to mind. Totally irrational on the surface yet working those steps with God AND
humans are a sure-fire way to quit drinking. I mean bad I-can't-quit-drinking- for-even-one-day-and-wake-up-in-my-own-piss type of drinking.

Science cannot come up with a way to quit drinking. Antibuse doesn't work. So- called irrational faith has been proven for 80 years to work the best.

AA's beliefs and steps and tenets are irrational by the standards of non-thiests
yet are so successful. I therefore believe that thier faith is rational because
there are tangible results. The same kind of taniglbe results that dogmatic non-
thiests claim do not exist.

Does anhyone want to tell us that the faith of a recvoring drunk is irrational?







-Curt
--- * QWKBack 2.0 * 32bit Windows
---
...Snapple "Real Fact" #50:Mosquitos have 47 teeth.
■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET

Re: Re: Interesting take on S
By: Curt to nightcrawler on Mon Dec 21 2009 10:46 am

Can you give examples.

Can I give examples of non-thiests making dogmatic statements about faith an God and religion? Are you serious? You may agree with the quote below. But

That's not the question posed. The question I stated was what has the Vatican done insofar as it relates to science that deserves any attention? If you can not be intellectually honest, please go away, I have no time for you.

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

Re: Quiting drinking by faith
By: Curt to esc on Mon Dec 21 2009 11:24 am

Does anhyone want to tell us that the faith of a recvoring drunk is irration

No, of course not. :) Good example...however my _personal_ feeling is that we don't fully (nearly for that matter) understand the complexities of the human mind. I see this as more of a mind-over-matter type of argument...less of a divine intervention type of argument.

Faith in oneself is such that human beings are able to do amazing things...run an ultramarathon through death valley, for instance. Science alone cannot make a person do that...the person still has to just go out and make themselves do it, no matter what their motivation or belief.

esc(montereybbs/demonic/mimic)

---
■ Synchronet ■ :: montereybbs.com ::

Re: Re: Interesting take on S
By: Curt to nightcrawler on Mon Dec 21 2009 10:46 am

"Since ancient times, the philosophers' secret has always been this: we
know that God does not exist, or, at least, if he does, he's utterly indifferent to our individual affairs--but we can't let the rabble know that; it's the fear of God, the threat of divine punishment and the promise of divine reward, that keeps in line those too unsophisticated to work out questions of morality on their own.

God is going to fly down in his UFO and strike you down with his death-ray, :) who's to say that god is not from another planet just testing humanity, pretty much like a chess game, in my belief all religions point to god as the same being, the texts have just been change to fit the culture of the believer.


--

Tim Smith (Mrproper)
+o WarZone BBS

---
■ Synchronet ■ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA

Re: Quiting drinking by faith
By: Curt to esc on Mon Dec 21 2009 11:24 am

I think there is too much to be ignored. AA and thier 12 steps to sobriety come to mind. Totally irrational on the surface yet working those steps
with God AND humans are a sure-fire way to quit drinking. I mean bad I-can't-quit-drinking- for-even-one-day-and-wake-up-in-my-own-piss type of drinking.

Science cannot come up with a way to quit drinking. Antibuse doesn't work. So- called irrational faith has been proven for 80 years to work the best.

AA's beliefs and steps and tenets are irrational by the standards of non-thiests yet are so successful. I therefore believe that thier faith is rational because there are tangible results. The same kind of taniglbe results that dogmatic non- thiests claim do not exist.

Does anhyone want to tell us that the faith of a recvoring drunk is irrational?

A recovering alchoholic could look to anyone who has higher moral sandards and stand out in society, I stopped being a morphine junky by looking up to my father and seeing what he stood for and watching his work ethic, he did'nt need drugs or alchohol to get through his day, his driving force was the he could wake up, go to work, and make a living for his family. You do not need a super natural force to guide you the way or any AA or Narconon classes to do this all you need is a positave role model in your life.. AA and Narconon may help some people who are weak minded but most of them end right back up where they were, where is god to help them then? Maybe god works through these positive role models I'm speaking of, I don't know.. It's hard to fathom religion.. but I belive AA and narconon is a joke.


--

Tim Smith (Mrproper)
+o WarZone BBS

---
■ Synchronet ■ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA

Re: Re: Interesting take on S
By: nightcrawler to Curt on Mon Dec 21 2009 06:05 pm

That's not the question posed. The question I stated was what has the Vatican done insofar as it relates to science that deserves any attention? If you can not be intellectually honest, please go away, I have no time for you.

the vatican has done nothing but set the advancemnt of humanity back many hundreds of years, even the science they say 'ended up being true' was still censored, the vatican city is the seat of the antichrist.



--

Tim Smith (Mrproper)
+o WarZone BBS

---
■ Synchronet ■ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA

Re: Quiting drinking by faith
By: esc to Curt on Mon Dec 21 2009 05:34 pm

Faith in oneself is such that human beings are able to do amazing things...run an ultramarathon through death valley, for instance. Science alone cannot make a person do that...the person still has to just go out
and make themselves do it, no matter what their motivation or belief.

and this is'nt faith in god to make one do this, it is faith in onesself, I am not atheist but I do not believe god would even lift a perverbial finger at helping one win a marathon unless the outcome of said marathon would help many people as a whole.


--

Tim Smith (Mrproper)
+o WarZone BBS

---
■ Synchronet ■ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA

Curt heard from mrproper about Quiting drinking by faith on 12-21-09

A recovering alchoholic could look to anyone who has higher moral sandards and
stand out in society, I stopped being a morphine junky by looking up to my m>father and seeing what he stood for and watching his work ethic,

Congrats on kicking that habit. That is really cool. It must be nice to be free
of that...

However, AA and NA are full of people who had plenty of good role models and who
found no way out. In-house recovery programs and therapists and the like did no
good for these people.

My only point was that a practiced faith that yields results - and therefore strengthens that faith - does not meet the defintion of irrational.

How is it that AA is such a joke when so many have come so far by working its steps I wonder?

--- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
---
...This message has ended, go in peace...
■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET

Curt heard from mrproper about Re: Interesting take on S on 12-21-09

God is going to fly down in his UFO and strike you down with his death-ray, :)

Good! I hope its before April 15.

who's to say that god is not from another planet just testing humanity, pretty
much like a chess game, in my belief all religions point to god as the same m>being, the texts have just been change to fit the culture of the believer.

Well christianity adapts to the current culture not by changing it's texts, or message, but because of what it revolves around. That is why all other major religons tend a lot more - but obviously not completely - to stay geographically
stationary - they are culturally based.

Christianity is exploding in Africa and China with the same core tenets of traditional new testament teachings that swept it from the middle east through the mediterranean and into Europe and "the west". Soon (or maybe already) christianity will be bigger in the southern hemisphere than in 'the west'.

It is entirely probable that 30% of China will be christians within 30 years. That's 1/2 billion people.






--- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
---
...Snapple "Real Fact" #50:Mosquitos have 47 teeth.
■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET

nightcrawler heard from Curt about Re: Interesting take on S on 12-23-09

nc, what you are not understanding here is that a one-sided stance on anything
- coupled with a predetermined stance that any other way of thinking is utterly
rubbish - leads to a bad end. I don't care if it's the vatican saying that the earth is the center of the universe or a skeptic scientist proclaiming that faith is irrational and that religon is a straight jacket needed only by the idiot masses.

Both are equally wrong and both are unable to accept correction and both are therefore more likely to be intelectaually dishonet with themselves because they
are now invested in the wrongness of the "other side". Both feel threatened. Both will tend to hold onto false ideas simply because it might mean that the other camp is right.

Are you starting to see what you and the vatican have in common?

Re: Re: Interesting take on S
By: Curt to nightcrawler on Mon Dec 21 2009 10:46 am
If you can
not be intellectually honest, please go away, I have no time for you.

You asked for an example and I gave you a damned good one. Do I need to find some idiotic dogmatic quote from Dawkins himself? That won't be tough.

---PREVIOUS MSG---

Yeah, it's OK for Dawkins to do it to religion, but not for the Vatican to d to science....the double standard on both sides is exactly what your quote f the survey book talks about.

Can you give examples.[snip]

----END QUOTE----

I am not interested in posting valid vatican statements on scientific matters.

The vatican has not shown anything like what is quoted below and bringing them into this does nothing to invalidate the point below but only supports it.

So we can trot out the idiot statements made by the vatican over the years and we talk about how they do not share the opinion expressed below, but that will get boring pretty quickly.

"That science and religion can work very well together deserves special emphasis. When we study the nature of light later in this book, we will
treat light first as w wave and then as a particle. At first, waves and particles may appear contradictory. You might believe that light can be
only one or the other, and that you must choose between them. What
scientists have discovered, however, is that light waves and light
particles complement each other, and that, when these two ideas are
taken together, they provide a deeper understanding of light."


--- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
---
...A pigeon's feathers are heavier than its bones
■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET

Curt heard from esc about Quiting drinking by faith on 12-21-09

Re: Quiting drinking by faith
By: Curt to esc on Mon Dec 21 2009 11:24 am

Does anhyone want to tell us that the faith of a recvoring drunk is irratio

No, of course not. :) Good example

Thanks.

...however my _personal_ feeling is that w
don't fully (nearly for that matter) understand the complexities of the human e>mind. I see this as more of a mind-over-matter type of argument...less of a e>divine intervention type of argument.

OK well we agree here on some key things. We have one participant here who has quit dope without AA just by making the choice to do something better. That's great. AA has had hundreds of thousands, maybe millions , who have failed trying
to make the very same choice.

Faith in oneself is such that human beings are able to do amazing things...run
an ultramarathon through death valley, for instance. Science alone cannot mak
a person do that...the person still has to just go out and make themselves do e>it, no matter what their motivation or belief.

No arguments here on that. AA's typilcally won't disagree with that except on the issue of drinking. They keep sober by coninuing to aknowledge thier utter powerlessness and working the steps and adhereing to the principles - the biggest of which is powerlessness. With them, it's never "I was powerless and now I'm not".

--- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
---
...A pigeon's feathers are heavier than its bones
■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET

Curt heard from nightcrawler about Re: Interesting take on S on 12-21-09

Re: Re: Interesting take on S
By: Curt to nightcrawler on Mon Dec 21 2009 10:46 am

Can you give examples.

Can I give examples of non-thiests making dogmatic statements about faith a
God and religion? Are you serious? You may agree with the quote below. But

That's not the question posed.

And just so we're clear, I'm intelectually stupid, not intelectually dishonest.
Big difference and I hope you'll excuse my misunderstanding.



--- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
---
...A pigeon's feathers are heavier than its bones
■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET

Re: Quiting drinking by faith
By: Curt to mrproper on Wed Dec 23 2009 01:01 pm

<SNIP>

How is it that AA is such a joke when so many have come so far by working its steps I wonder?

just for everyones enjoyment, I am a christian, but if I wer a muslim, buddihst
<sp> or whatever I just don't believe religion should be brought into a program
like that who has people from so many ethnicitys and religions or no religion.

it's just my opinion though.. I've never been to either and maybe I should'nt knock it before I see it for myself (I hope I never) I'm purely going on my friends opinions.


--

Tim Smith (Mrproper)
+o WarZone BBS

---
■ Synchronet ■ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA

Re: Re: Interesting take on S
By: Curt to mrproper on Wed Dec 23 2009 01:25 pm

It is entirely probable that 30% of China will be christians within 30 years. That's 1/2 billion people.

and that's what scares me.. how many seals do you believe have been broken?

let me re-phrase.. I'm not scared.. wtf can I do about it, just live life the best I can and help my neighbors and not so close neighbors out the best I can.


--

Tim Smith (Mrproper)
+o WarZone BBS

---
■ Synchronet ■ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA

Re: Re: Interesting take on S
By: Curt to nightcrawler on Wed Dec 23 2009 04:02 pm

And just so we're clear, I'm intelectually stupid, not intelectually dishonest. Big difference and I hope you'll excuse my misunderstanding.

ROFLMAO!


--

Tim Smith (Mrproper)
+o WarZone BBS

---
■ Synchronet ■ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA

mrproper heard from Curt about Quiting drinking by faith on 12-27-09

just for everyones enjoyment, I am a christian, but if I wer a muslim, buddihs
<sp> or whatever I just don't believe religion should be brought into a progra
like that who has people from so many ethnicitys and religions or no religion.

it's just my opinion though.. I've never been to either and maybe I should'nt m>knock it before I see it for myself (I hope I never) I'm purely going on my m>friends opinions.

Well they stress a God "as we understood him" so they are independent on that.


--- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
---
...This message has ended, go in peace...
■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET

mrproper heard from Curt about Re: Interesting take on S on 12-27-09

Re: Re: Interesting take on S
By: Curt to mrproper on Wed Dec 23 2009 01:25 pm

It is entirely probable that 30% of China will be christians within 30 years. That's 1/2 billion people.

and that's what scares me.. how many seals do you believe have been broken?

let me re-phrase.. I'm not scared.. wtf can I do about it, just live life the m>best I can and help my neighbors and not so close neighbors out the best I can

I don't know about seals, but you know I just try to do the best I can too most
of the time. Beating up queer-o-sexuals, handing out tracts on the subway. Hell,
I only beat my wife 3 times last week and my last case of vodka lasted me a whole month.

Just kidding on all of that of course. I personally don't have a problem with 1/2 billion chinese christians. I think it's great.


--- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
---
...I spilled spot remover on my dog and now he's gone
■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET

Re: Re: Interesting take on S
By: Curt to mrproper on Sun Dec 27 2009 07:28 pm

I don't know about seals, but you know I just try to do the best I can too most of the time. Beating up queer-o-sexuals, handing out tracts on the subway. Hell, I only beat my wife 3 times last week and my last case of vodka lasted me a whole month.

I knew that had to be a joke.. otherwise :)

Just kidding on all of that of course. I personally don't have a problem with 1/2 billion chinese christians. I think it's great.

my problem (and opinion) is I beleive all religions point to the same god, the religions are just tailor made for that certian ethnicity.

I don't believe in trying to convert a third world nation (not speaking of china) to chrisianty just so they can eat their one bowl of rice, this is what is creating all these wars (besides the urge for oil) every religion is trying to conver the others to their own.. it remind me of the borg.


--

Tim Smith (Mrproper)
+o WarZone BBS

---
■ Synchronet ■ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA