LMAO! I totally agree that English and Grammar is obviously not my strong suit. I only used Einstein because crow said that no logical thinking man would buy into science (at least advertised in many other threads). I also believe the "compatibility" issue he adamantly preaches is false because geniuses like Einstein actually believed in a conscious universe. And the concept of "conscious" cannot realistically be proven empirically; yet he still believed it. Mainly, I knew Crow puts a lot of weight on men like Einstein; so I went "strawman" on him.
entirely ambiguous as far as science is concerned. "our creator" could be absolutely anything. science IS making deductions about probability based on observation. the definition of "proof" in science is reaching a certain probability threshold. that is how humans determine what constitutes knowledge in most facets of their lives. not really relevant to the discussion but I don't think your metaphor fits here. the point of the Schrodinger's cat mental experiment is that according to some interpretations of QM the cat ends up actually dead and alive at the same time. again, this type of statement necessarily avoids being specific about what you mean by god. are you, or are you not talking specifically about Yahweh here? If you are, why do you think Yahweh is any different than Thor in terms of accessibility to science? would you say it's a matter of perspective whether Thor exists or not?
Or everything, including yourself… That is udder bullshit! Man can obtain knowledge without science. The topic is about religion vs. science eh? So what does it matter if it's Thor or the spaghetti monster; the topic is faith vs. non-science.
Hu? Quite the opposite. I was saying I DON'T get the OP question & was just following along with the discussion.
I can tell you don't agree with me but to call the break down of the family simple is mind boggling. You cast aside the value of and the loss of religion as if it has no bearing. There certainly seems to be a lack of wisdom to end up with that conclusion. But never mind that I do not agree, I am sure that a former UN ambassador and minister do not agree with you either. "My hope for my children must be that they respond to the still, small voice of God in their own hearts." Andrew Young And this former student of Hindu patience , non violence , and Baptist Minister would disagree with most everything you say. “Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals.” Martin Luther King Jr. By the way, I did not come to suspect the Muslim for his believe in God, but for the teaching in his Holy book. The use of God to bolster Teaching intolerance in supposedly holy scripture sets that religion apart from all others. It teaches todays reader how to (mis)treat the non believer.
No actually; this is what you said I got the interpretation that you didn't feel the need to answer the question because you thought the OP didn't explain it well. I gave examples of everyone else responding to it fine. This gives me an idea that you didn't feel the need to answer because you were above the question. And when confronted, you backpedaled and gave some lame excuse that the OP didn't give you the proper format to answer. Arrogance…
I gave at least 4 points of evidence that contradict your claim that there's a strong correlation - low crime rate in non-religious European countries etc. Christians have historically been no less intolerant of non-believers than Muslims. Any general differences you can cite are of historically very recent origin. Also comparing radical Muslims to progressive Christians is apples to oranges. The majority of Muslims worldwide are actually progressive and tolerant, and there certainly exists a minority faction of extremely intolerant Christians in the USA. Also this can be used to illustrates my main point. Obviously God and holy scriptures can be used to teach anything based on "interpretation". The moral standard used to best interpret holy books for social harmony HAS to come from elsewhere. It has to exist INDEPENDENT of any specific religious belief. In fact it is necessarily secular.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Crime_trends_in_detail The UK is a generally "Atheistic" society; which has more crime than Italy; which is predominately theist.
The Quran does not belong to radical Muslims, it is the Holy scripture of Muslims. Perhaps you need to open it up and find out what is in there. Progressive Christians?? WTF is that? I sure didn't compare them to anyone. I take it you don't consider Dr. King to have standing to comment on social harmony or stability? How about Billy Graham? "Man has two great spiritual needs. One is for forgiveness. The other is for goodness." or this one; "Only God Himself fully appreciates the influence of a Christian mother in the molding of character in her children." Today perhaps it is the influence of the Christian Father that is missing all too often in far too many places.
it's more like you should open the bible and see what's in there. obviously neither book is going to match up well with modern notions of morality. It's more that I don't think there's much value to bare opinion that doesn't cite any actual evidence, which none of the quotes you provided do.
Which one, Reluctant Messiah or Johnathan Living Seagull? Both are very fast and simple reads with a lot of meaning behind them. Should take an adult no more than a few hours. He has a series of books that are probably similar, I've always planned on getting around to the others but haven't. You probably meant Johnathan Livingston Seagull, since that's his most famous and least obvious. I believe his main inspiration for this book is Hinduism. In Hinduism you keep your soul and either move upwards through planes of reality towards god, stay stagnant, or move down all based on the progression of your soul during that life time. The ultimate goal is to become godlike, or god or at one with god (something like that), that is their version of heaven. Your soul progresses based on things like love, acceptance, and enlightenment but not in way that most christian or westerners would think is normal. So in a Johnathan Livingston Seagull JLS achieves an extraordinary enlightenment on seagull being, like maybe Gandhi, and he pushes through persecution and isolation because of it.
I see, no man's opinion will count with you, only hard evidence. It take it you never experience the presents of wisdom as Doc. King use the word? Well Okay, I think we have concluded the conversation.
I just think Dr. King, like you are doing now, did not logically think through where what he calls "wisdom" (knowledge of what is and isn't moral and just actions) must be coming from. It obviously can't be from the bible as far as he was concerned. 2 of the 10 commandments effectively endorse slavery. You cannot say our (shared, modern) values come from religion. Religious people pick and choose from their religion the things that match pre-existing secular values.
Care to elaborate as to which two? 1. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Endorse slavery? I don't see it. 2. Thou shalt have no graven images. Endorse slavery? No. 3. Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain. Endorses slavery? No. 4. Thou shalt keep the sabbath day holy. Endorses slavery? No. 5. Thou shalt honor thy father and mother. Endorses slavery? No. 6. Thou shalt not kill. Endorses slavery? No. 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Slavery? No. 8. Thou shalt not steal. Slavery? No. 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness (lie). Slavery? No. 10. Thou shalt not covet. Endorses slavery? I don't see it. Can you explain how two of those ten commandments endorse slavery? Gramps...
