I Can't Stand It When People Fight Over Religion

I see little point in debating those with fundamental religious beliefs since most are fanatical and cannot accept scientific reasoning over their faith.
I don't need faith in science I just let the logic prevail.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

ArishMell · 70-79, M

The more you try to explain the flaws and lack of logic in their arguments, the more defensive they become, sometimes aggressively so.

What many of them seem to have in common though, is any ability to explain firstly [i]why[/i] they believe as they do, and secondly why at least some so desperately want everyone else to obey them.

Not just religion either. It's much like that with the Bermuda Triangle / Flat Earth / No Gravity / Geocentric Universe / Daniken-fans / political-conspiracy types too. Some even conflate their mystic mish-mash with real-world politics and/or religion - while failing to see the irony of using the Internet to attack science!

And worse, as we saw with Alex Jones recently and now some similar liar and his followers in Britain, trying to bully and call "hoaxers", the bereaved or the injured survivors, of the nail-bomb attack on the Manchester Arena a few years ago.

.....

Not new though.

Just as the Internet makes life easy for the above prunes, so the development of printing made it very easy for the 15C German cleric, Heinrich Kramer, to disseminate his book [i]Malleus Malificarum.[/i] Although condemned by leading theologians of the time as inciting illegal and amoral acts, it became an inspiration and manual across much of Europe for the "witchcraft" panic and appalling persecution of so-called "witches", for the next two or three hundred years.

At least the 19C, Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle was relatively harmless in his nonsense... The [i]Sherlock Holmes[/i] writer was the one responsible for building up the Mary Celest story (including French-ifying the ship's name) and forcing the "Cottingley Fairies" practical joke far beyond its perpetrators' control.

View 9 more replies »

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@Pfuzylogic It's only that last sentence of your that differs from what I'd been taught about the religion.

The Genesis story I knew does not include Jesus at all, although the Bible later claims the ancient Hebrew prophets had forecast Him in their future.

I do not know what the relationship between Judaism and Jesus is, but the OT and the Torah are compiled from the same pre-Christ books. They do not use all the same books, do not put them in the same order; and both compilations omit quite a number of other books known now only as fragments.

Islam uses the same pre-Christian, Hebrew roots, but sticks to their original monotheism. It regards Jesus as a particularly talented teacher but not divine, to protect God's uniqueness and mystery.

damselfly · 100+, F

@ArishMell the relationship betwèn Jesus and Judaism is that Jesus, and his earthly parents, were Jews

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@damselfly Yes, they were, and so were his disciples and the early apostles - it was more by history that their ideas became a new religion, not simply a fairly minor Jewish sect.

The major factor encouraging that was probably the Romans' eventual conversion; with their huge empire then letting Christianity spread across Europe.

It is the Judaic teaching that later developed about Jesus I meant, and I do not know what that is.

calicuz · 51-55, M

The problem is not the religion, it's that most religious people don't study their religion, especially when it comes to Christianity. Instead of reading the text and forming their own opinion, they simply repeat what they hear in church service or what was taught as a child in Sunday School.

I speak from personal experience as well. I used to be apart of the Christian Church but have left the religion behind, and now seek out only God.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

It.s not just science they reject (even while ironically using the Internet to do so).

They also reject all other religious beliefs, even different sects and interpretations within their own faith.

Essentially they are terrified of other people having ideas differing from their own.

JimboSaturn · 51-55, M

Yes it's completely pointless.

Pfuzylogic · M

There aren’t enough facts to provide a real model in Science. Hawking’s failures should be examples of that.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@Pfuzylogic With respect that misses the point. Science proceeds by questioning, testing and reviewing, not casting the first idea in stone, as dogma.

So if some of Prof. Hawking's theories later prove incorrect in the light of newer evidence perhaps from refined techniques, so be it - and he would have accepted it. Scientists are human and like all people they can be wrong; and not all are good at accepting being proven wrong, but that's the name of the game. The vast majority are honest, and they leave blind dogma one must never question, to people terrified of questioning or being questioned.

Besides, which models in which branches of the sciences did you have in mind? Can't have been those of electricity and magnetism, and light, obviously!

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Qwerty14

You actually do need faith in science. Specifically the scientific method

Maturebate · 70-79, M

@Qwerty14 Not faith based on myth and legend.

Qwerty14

@Maturebate I think you're confusing the mythos of religion with the practice of religion. The faith you have for the philosophy of religion and the faith you have for the philosophy of science is more or less the same. Both are practised on the foundations of this faith in the philosophy. Where they differ is what they're used for. One tries to understand the material world through laws and principles. The other tries to understand the immaterial world through morals and ethics.

SW-User

Different religions fighting for the same god

Add a comment...