Science, Religion, God – Let’s just be honest

I am intrigued by you, scienceishonesty. GDR and jar seem to have it covered here, but I did notice some things I thought I'd input, all starting with a single question:What is your purpose here?Or perhaps I should begin with the reason why I love this forum. I'm here because I enjoy a community in which I can be part of an ongoing dialogue. This dialogue is indeed ongoing, since if it was not sites like this would not exist. I love the fact that I can "log on," debate and converse with different people, holding totally opposite positions from myself, but do all of that in a respectful manner. And I think that's what I'm getting at.I mean no disrespect dude, but your OP is, as GDR stated earlier, one giant straw man assault. It is clear that you once believed something, now you do not, and therefore attack your previous beliefs with what appears to be condescension, even hatred at points. Examples like these come to mind: The list literally goes on and on. I don't see any attempt to dialogue and respect the beliefs of others, rather what I read is a specifically targeted attack stemming from negative personal experience. Not trying to judge or box you in, that is just what it appears to be.You also repeatedly assume my experience, as a Christian, is your experience, and my beliefs are the same as your old ones, like here: Perhaps for you, being a Christian ment blinding yourself to reality. That actually makes a lot of sense because Christianity is good at doing that. That's humanity. But to assume just because your Christian experience and thought process went a specific way that mine does the same doesn't make very much sense.Something else I noticed is that while your title, "Science, Religion, God - Let's Just be Honest" seems to be speaking on religion as a whole, your content specifically targets the Christian religion, despite your attempts to make it appear otherwise.All of this to say: What you're saying has some merit and value to it, but as a Christian I feel less inclined to listen to what you have to say because of the disrespectful tone in which it is written. As someone who holds contrary views to many on this site (not trying to sound like a martyr, just reality), there is much I don't agree with here. But you will still find respect oozing from these typed words because I believe respect breeds respect. Try starting there, and you may be less frustrated, and perhaps even generate some positive vibes And everyone loves positive vibes! They're the best kind! Regards!- Raph

I do not think jar is side-stepping any of your questions.
I just don't think you're getting the answers you want... simple, easy answers that are simple and easy to dismiss.What you're getting are answers you didn't consider before asking your questions.This doesn't mean you're doing anything wrong.
This doesn't mean jar is side-stepping.
What this means is that you have a chance to learn something you didn't know before.Are you honest enough to allow others to introduce information you were not aware of before?Your line of questioning with jar came down to this:

quote:

---

Are there any teachings that are part of your religion which you hold to be true no matter what?

---

Although jar didn't use the word "no" in his response, he did explain to you why his answer is "no."Which leads back to an explanation for your original idea:

quote:

---

Let's take Christianity and look at the different extremes represented. Let's say that 1 is very mild and 10 is the most radically fundamental. Even if you choose 1, you're still clinging on to a firm and unwavering belief in SOME aspect of that religion and believe it to be absolutely "the truth" regardless of what science may reveal in the future. You can point to extremes to make yourself look immune from the same fate but the reality belies your position.

---

And here, you are absolutely correct.
"If 1 is very mild and still clings to a firm and unwavering belief in SOME aspect of that religion..."The issue is that your "if" statement does not conform to reality.jar (and possibly others as well) are in the position that they are religious, they are Christian... but they do not hold anything as an "absolute unwavering truth."
They simply do not fit on your scale. They would be a 0 or maybe even a negative number. But they're still Christian.This doesn't tell us that jar is side-stepping your question.
This tells us that your question does not frame the issue correctly... your original idea of "how Christians really are" is incorrect.Are you honest enough to accept this as a possibility?When a scientist is presented with information he didn't have before... he incorporates the new information and adjusts his theories (thinking) accordingly.Can you honestly acknowledge this new information and adjust your ideas and future questions accordingly?
Or will you dogmatically cling to your old ideas and ignore this new information?

I alluded to Christianity a lot simply because that is what my background is, but I was very clear to include all religion in general in order so that my audience does not fall in the trap (which you did) that I'm carrying any particular vendetta towards Christianity specifically. I actually have no hatred whatsoever for religion, only for what it does to people. It makes me sad that so many people will continue to waste their lives and the lives of others on mythology.This topic, as disjointed as it is, was a collection of "wow" thoughts and "moments" that popped in my head around the time that I finally started facing things from an objective perspective, from a realistic and honest perspective, not with the blinders of a religion which already supposes that it has a certain set of answers instead of real answers. I decided that it's time to stop believing something because I want it to be real.My purpose is to hopefully inspire those who are on the fence to look at reality and take the red pill instead of the blue. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

Let's just make this simple for you. When someone believes in a certain religion, that is, to accept a certain set of doctrinal beliefs to be an absolute truth (to whatever degree, mild or extreme), they are automatically setting themselves up to potentially be at loggerheads with potentially new emerging discoveries about reality through science, either past, present or future. If someone's position is "well, these are my beliefs until they are shown to be wrong", well, that's not really religion because religion "knows that it knows (without knowing".If a core religious tenant for someone in the past was believing the earth was flat, well, you can see how that would be a problem nowadays. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

So as a Christian you believe that Christ died for the sins of the world, right?

I do. In context, sin=separation. You present science as a more logical solution. Yet what has science given humanity? Many good and noble things...to be sure. Yet we have always engaged in wars with greater and greater destructive potential. In fact, I would wager--given human nature---that weapons of mass destruction will yet be used in a future conflict.Belief only makes sense if God exists, however...and if He is good. I would further argue that such a belief held by an individual does not make them ignorant of science. We as humans need to recognize that philosophy is not always scientific.

No. Jesus died because Jesus was born and anything (human at least) will die.

I wasn't asking you but nice to see volunteers! I'm glad you acknowledge that science has given us many good and noble things, in fact, it has given us EVERY advancement that we have while religion has mostly held back progress and human advancement (because remember, it doesn't need new answers, it HAS them).Now let's look at what religion has given us: Division, strife, wars and jihadism and a few charities and food pantries hinged on potential indoctrination.I'm assuming then that if you believe in sin that you believe in Adam and Eve. After all, how would Christ die for a sin that wasn't committed? If that is the case, how do you reconcile the genetic evidence which completely eliminates any sort of reality for an Adam and Eve scenario? Where did sin come from in light of this understanding?Also, would you like to show me any instance of observed phenomena where your religious explanation has progressed ahead of the scientific explanation in terms of plausibility? After all, you seem to somehow think that your faith has equal validity to science in some form or another without distinguishing it from belief in the tooth fairy, for instance. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

Okay. That's all I needed then.

HUH?Couldda saved alotta time but I am willing to bet you are still as clueless as when you began.

Actually, you could have just saved us both the time by simply exclaiming that you do not actually hold to any Christian doctrine in terms of it being divinely inspired and true despite saying earlier that you are Christian. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

Yup, ignorance and clueless.But are you interested in being educated and informed about my beliefs instead of just continuing to misrepresent what I believe?

You said:"No. Jesus died because Jesus was born and anything (human at least) will die."---jarThis means you are acknowledging Jesus did not die for any sins and that Jesus was not divine. Since Christianity the religion rests on Jesus being of divine origin and that he died on the cross to save us from sin, we can cleanly wipe that off of the table. If you don't believe that there's no reason to discuss anything about it. My only issue is with people who believe in a particular religion that affirms a set of beliefs that are true no matter what (which is practically what religion is to begin with). Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

Hello SIH, first interaction between us, so welcome to the debate (at least with me). As someone else who left, as jar would call it, a Christian Cult of Ignorance (Catholics) I am someone who shares your appreciation of what science can actually teach us.However, the dichotomy that you have created, in essence, does not exist. As I was a Catholic there were many instances, including the divinity of Jesus, that I was willing to waver on should the evidence show me otherwise. This did not remove the fact that I listened to the teachings of Jesus (love one another, feed those in need, etc...) and could rightly still be called a Christian as the New Testament was where this information was derived from. No need for the divine, but rather a very motivational, compassionate leader in written history. I was still living by Christian teachings, but was willing to adjust my knowledge, similar to what science requires of me when new discoveries are made.Another aspect that you miss in your attempted refutation of the purpose of religion is the metaphysical. If an individual states they unequivocally believe in a (non-interventionist) God, based in a metaphysical realm, how would science have anything to say to destroy this person's faith. They place their deity within a realm that is untouchable by science, since science, by definition, can only study the natural/physical world. Objects thought/believed to be operating outside of this natural aspect would not be investigated because science cannot do so.So for you, how can a metaphysical realm based upon faith have an impact on someone's acceptance of scientific discovery based upon evidence or vice versa? The individual is openly admitting that no evidence will be brought forth through belief in the metaphysical. I think that your bigger issue is not with the religious, but with those who dogmatically hold to the tenets of faith regardless of evidence and many religious individuals do not do this. However, this prospect of your argument I can understand and would agree that fundamentalism, in its many incarnations, is an affront to the massive gathering of human knowledge we have carefully cultivated through history. However, painting all religious individuals with the brush of cognitive dissonance such as you have done, even when their own stated beliefs refute your ideas, falls under the same issue of sticking to a dogmatic idea regardless of evidence to the contrary. You must understand that there is wide variation to how individuals use faith to come to answers and what answers they expect faith to give them. You turning it into a black and white issue is not beneficial to the discussion or toward reaching an understanding between the groups. Rather, it simply serves to create a more bolded dividing line between the religious and non-religious, an idea I personally find abhorrent when it is done by either side of the debate.

Then you should have stated that your issue was only with the dogmatic religions. However, your OP did not differentiate between the many different aspects of religion and focused heavily on Christianity as a whole. What about Buddhism's main tenets, are there any issues within the noble eightfold path or the Four Noble Truths? How about Christian religions that place God in the metaphysical? You must stop looking at the issue in a black and white.As for Fundamentalism, of course dogmatically holding a belief in the face of opposing evidence from the natural world is ridiculous, which is why many religions have begun the process of moving away from a strict dogma. The Catholic Church accepts evolution (along with most other faiths), denies the accuracy of Genesis (along with most other faiths), and questions the applicability of the Old Testament in many ways (eating shellfish, not stoning disobedient children, etc...). It seems like outside of the remaining fundamentalist groups, your biggests issues are with a mindset of Christianity from the rise to about the 1950's.ABE - Also, it was not likely that early Christians required the divinity of Christ, especially since Paul did not write much about his teachings or the man himself, but rather about how the Church should operate in different regions. The divinity of Christ (fully human/fully divine) was not fully agreed upon until 451. SourceEdited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.