Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There is a problem with this arguement.
First off, they are scientists and not Theologians. You can use the "If she/he is smart/logical in this subject, then she/he is smart/logical in all subject."
But that arguement is not logical!
Now to the question--Do we need Religion. Some individuals do in the sense they cannot roll out of Bed without some kind of faith, belief, hope that will get them through the day. If religion was to go away, those individuals may be undone.
There is a problem with this arguement.
First off, they are scientists and not Theologians. You can use the "If she/he is smart/logical in this subject, then she/he is smart/logical in all subject."
But that arguement is not logical!
Again, it;s a logical fallacy knows as the 'appeal to (false) authority'
Now to the question--Do we need Religion. Some individuals do in the sense they cannot roll out of Bed without some kind of faith, belief, hope that will get them through the day. If religion was to go away, those individuals may be undone.
Let us deal with the larger picture. In the sociological sense, what could fill religion's roll in human affairs and the development of society, if all pretense if deity as it has been known were cast aside?
I already explained that, Anne. it';s acoping mechanism they resorted to when faced with their lack of understanding, much like yourself. For a scientific mind to reach the limits of comprehension and not know the answer is infuriating, so many weaker hearts have grasped for an escape in the form of religion
So we're supposed to believe it because they do?
It doesn't matter how intelligent you are, you can still be weak. Just because they figured out something about the universe doesn't mean they have some knowledge we don't. They just think differently than most other people. Who cares about Nobel prize winners in economics and other such categories with no relevance to the religion vs science fight? How many of those nobel prize winners are in quantum mechanics?
You have to rememeber as well that if the people back in the day didn't proclaim Jesus as the number 1 scientist they were never taken seriously, and sometimes killed. My point being that a historical record may be inaccurate of someones true beliefs and scientists like Newton Da Vinci etc be left out.
So, JB, you are also challenging the likes of Albert Einstein, Issac Newton, and the likes of hundreds of Nobel Laureates on Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Psychiatry, Astonomy, Geometry and an array of Scientifically based professions who have exceeded the common criteria of excellence in their field. 50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God
Sheesh, if I had to choose a simpleton in this crowd solely on credibility, it would have to be you, Sir.
Anne Marie
There is a problem with this arguement.
First off, they are scientists and not Theologians. You can use the "If she/he is smart/logical in this subject, then she/he is smart/logical in all subject."
But that arguement is not logical!
Second, their ideas on religion and GOD may differ significantly from each other--so any consensus they may come up with will be the most brittle of consensus!!
Third--God is used sparingly between believers of any religious concept. So you have to find their dairy and notes on the subject just to come up with what religion(if any) each scientist believed.
Now to the question--Do we need Religion. Some individuals do in the sense they cannot roll out of Bed without some kind of faith, belief, hope that will get them through the day. If religion was to go away, those individuals may be undone.So it is not a question if we need religion or not, because that question can not be answered by any collection of people. The question should be "Do you need religion?"
To Each his own....
But JB--you can have a "religion" that is absensce of diety/deities.[/quote
incorrect. You are attempting to redefine religion to incorporate all ideologies and philosophies, to fit your agenda. am not drunk enough to fall for it, no matter how much I might be depending on Firefox's spellchecker right no
Dude, it no more takes a 'weak heart' to love God, especially a perceived reality of of God such as human religion provides, than it takes a 'weak heart' to love another person.
I did not say it takes a weak heart to love deity. I said that weak minds tend to turn to deity and religion for comfort. They are not equivalent statements.
If the concept of faith needs to be applied in order to see the object of ones affection, I dare say that an even stronger heart may be required.
or simply a weaker mind- or a weaker heart than cannot stand the thought that there is nothing more than the physical universe. I stand by my earlier statements.
Don't discount or disrespect the passion of someone who is sincere
I never disregarded or disrespected their passion. i disregarded and disrespected their beliefs and assertions
- they don't have to be right to sincere or passionate, and those are two human qualities that this average Joe cherishes with the same esteem as trust.
Surely, you meant to say they do have such rights?*goes to make another drink*
It's interesting how folks equate blind faith with stupidity or ignorance. It's even more interesting how those who don't believe in God or at the very least in spirituality, which and of itself covers the same metaphysical ground, still allow themselves to fall in love with someone with absolutely no scientifc advantage in gaging the sensibility of trust of that persons intention and affections.
How does anyone explain that? They can't. It's a massive contradiction by those who devote themselves exclusively inside the box of scientific convention when the rest of life is compelling an obvious, undeniably deeper space to explore.
Anne Marie
It's interesting how folks equate blind faith with stupidity or ignorance.
It's even more interesting how those who don't believe in God or at the very least in spirituality, which and of itself covers the same metaphysical ground,
still allow themselves to fall in love with someone with absolutely no scientifc advantage in gaging the sensibility of trust of that persons intention and affections.
How does anyone explain that?
They can't.
It's a massive contradiction
So, JB, you are also challenging the likes of Albert Einstein, Issac Newton, and the likes of hundreds of Nobel Laureates on Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Psychiatry, Astonomy, Geometry and an array of Scientifically based professions who have exceeded the common criteria of excellence in their field. 50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God
Sheesh, if I had to choose a simpleton in this crowd solely on credibility, it would have to be you, Sir.
Anne Marie
There is a problem with this arguement.
First off, they are scientists and not Theologians. You can use the "If she/he is smart/logical in this subject, then she/he is smart/logical in all subject."
But that arguement is not logical!
Second, their ideas on religion and GOD may differ significantly from each other--so any consensus they may come up with will be the most brittle of consensus!!
Third--God is used sparingly between believers of any religious concept. So you have to find their dairy and notes on the subject just to come up with what religion(if any) each scientist believed.
Now to the question--Do we need Religion. Some individuals do in the sense they cannot roll out of Bed without some kind of faith, belief, hope that will get them through the day. If religion was to go away, those individuals may be undone.So it is not a question if we need religion or not, because that question can not be answered by any collection of people. The question should be "Do you need religion?"
To Each his own....
"If religion was to go away, those individuals may be undone."
I strongly disagree with this. If religion was to go away it would make no difference to a lot of people in terms of manmade laws and rituals. It would only apply to those who are compulsively searching for meaning in their lives but have yet to find it. Many scientists have spent their entire lifetime attempting to uncover the origins of life, and why they exist to begin with. Not a bad undertaking, but they will never find it. Relgion does not necessarily accommodate such answers as well. It's something that comes like an epiphamy to individuals. It's not something that is necessarily taught. Just simply defined after you've experienced such a thing and recognize a similar account.
In this scenario, not only would individuals become undone, should science ever uncover the origins of life conclusively with solid evidence and be able to create life from nothing, as would be required to actually prove such a theory, but our existence would most certainly self-destruct.
On a sociological premise, whether God exists or not to whomever, faith based individuals and societies historically have prospered far better in terms of living harmoneously among each other because the collective recognition of other people as well as their own sense of value for life is greatly exercised and respected. Without moral sensibilities and core value, you will indeed have a society if not a planet of humans who have completely lost sight of humanity.
Anne Marie
Now to the question--Do we need Religion. Some individuals do in the sense they cannot roll out of Bed without some kind of faith, belief, hope that will get them throug.
"If religion was to go away, those individuals may be undone."
I strongly disagree with this. If religion was to go away it would make no difference to a lot of people in terms of manmade laws and rituals. It would only apply to those who are compulsively searching for meaning in their lives but have yet to find it. Many scientists have spent their entire lifetime attempting to uncover the origins of life, and why they exist to begin with. Not a bad undertaking, but they will never find it. Relgion does not necessarily accommodate such answers as well. It's something that comes like an epiphamy to individuals. It's not something that is necessarily taught. Just simply defined after you've experienced such a thing and recognize a similar account.
In this scenario, not only would individuals become undone, should science ever uncover the origins of life conclusively with solid evidence and be able to create life from nothing, as would be required to actually prove such a theory, but our existence would most certainly self-destruct.
On a sociological premise, whether God exists or not to whomever, faith based individuals and societies historically have prospered far better in terms of living harmoneously among each other because the collective recognition of other people as well as their own sense of value for life is greatly exercised and respected. Without moral sensibilities and core value, you will indeed have a society if not a planet of humans who have completely lost sight of humanity.
Anne Marie
How can you tell though if the prosperity is due to the people having a commonality or if it due to the power structure being able to exert better control over the sheeple via fear of God?
Harmoneous living can also be attributed to common skin color and language - there are complicating variables in the equation.
-Joe
Simpletons need religion, so that's a yes.
you must spend a lot of time in church.
never, actually.
Religion allows people to make up answers to troubling questions they can't answer.
Even great minds like Newton have sought refuge in religion,upon reaching the limits of their understanding.
On the personal level, it is a coping mechanism and source of comfort.
On the social level, it has long been a powerful means of control and a strong unifying factor capable of binding large numbers of otherwise diverse persons together into a singular People. Take, for example, Constantine's use of his own brand of neo-christianity (what would become Roman Catholicism) to bind the Roman populace together under the cross, when they were otherwise greatly varied in all but the name 'Roman'.
Do we need religion?
In a word, yes.
The op asked "we". So you are incorrect in stating "yes" as many we's don't.
Does Al realize how stupid he looks right now?
right
When you show yourself capable of intelligent thought and critical thinking, we might take you seriously. As it stands, you're just another joke on the internet.
Sure thing, you windy douchebag.
In your case it's critical stinking up the joint, the joke's on you.
If only you could make a joke ...
you must spend a lot of time in church.
never, actually.
Which of course is where you get your expertise on religion right?
Its incredibly funny to watch people rail against religion who admit their ignorance of every single faith/philosophy out there. You admit you know absolutely nothing and have no desire to know anything, but you know more than people who have studied for decades.
Its just hilarious. Its like refusing to take basic math while telling a calculus professor that he is stupid for believing something called "numbers." If you want to learn the things of the Spirit, you learn them from the Spirit. You cant and wont learn anything by refusing to pick up a book, engage in moral activity, or praying to learn. How do you expect to know without experimenting on the word?
Yet somehow its the people who have valid spiritual experiences that are stupid or nuts. Like its sane to complain about somethign you dont believe exists.
So we're supposed to believe it because they do?
It doesn't matter how intelligent you are, you can still be weak. Just because they figured out something about the universe doesn't mean they have some knowledge we don't. They just think differently than most other people. Who cares about Nobel prize winners in economics and other such categories with no relevance to the religion vs science fight? How many of those nobel prize winners are in quantum mechanics?
You have to rememeber as well that if the people back in the day didn't proclaim Jesus as the number 1 scientist they were never taken seriously, and sometimes killed. My point being that a historical record may be inaccurate of someones true beliefs and scientists like Newton Da Vinci etc be left out.
