Anyone Changing Their Mind · Religion Forum

ThePittman "Pitt Happens"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not all religions are the same.

Agreed but I have seen some more structured then others and others more of a philosophy then a religion.

Shakyamunison Nam Myoho Renge Kyo

Originally posted by ThePittman
Agreed but I have seen some more structured then others and others more of a philosophy then a religion.

What would you call a philosophy with a practice?

What I mean by a practice is a meditation regiment or chanting, including ceremonies.

Lord Urizen Perfection

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The abortion thread. This thread. Most threads in general.

Name an INSTANCE where I stated beleif as Fact, and not just beleif with conviction.

Saying " Oh you always do that" doesn't constitute any claim you make.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Either belief needs to be justified if one asserts it as true.

All beleifs are justified in some way or another. I think the word you are trying to push is proven. In your case, any beleif that cannot be scientifically proven is entirely invalid.

There is other justification besides the scientific.

Lord Urizen Perfection

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Oweeee boy! You sure do rite fast. I say you done give us 4 more dem dere statements from da atheest perpective..and den we'll ad dem to da other 6 statments ya gave us an we'll have the Good ol Atheist version of da 10 commandments. So watcha think bout dat boy?

Shut up ❌

ThePittman "Pitt Happens"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What would you call a philosophy with a practice?
What I mean by a practice is a meditation regiment or chanting, including ceremonies.

For me a religion or religious belief would believe in a higher being such as God, Allah or what ever, the practice of meditation or chanting in a relaxation or trying to achieve some type of higher consciences is more of a philosophy or type of life style.

xmarksthespot CEO, BS Comics

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Name an [b]INSTANCE where I stated beleif as Fact, and not just beleif with conviction.
Saying " Oh you always do that" doesn't constitute any claim you make.[/B]

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Cancer is not alive you dumbass.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Prevention is not killing, Abortion is.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
At around 3-4 months, the foetus already develops functional nerves, so to subject a foetus at this stage of an Abortion is tortorous.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Love is [b]NOT A PERSON, it is a FORCE that we ALL HAVE ACCESS TO AND EQUAL ABILITY TO POSSESS AND SHARE.[/B]

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Biologically normal? Every animal is different, even among the same species.
Crocidile mothers are known to commonly eat thier own children....interesting, isn't it ? How the "motherly program" isn't present in every single creature....

http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/safari/crocs/expert/expert8.html

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Robtard, Instinct is a universal primal force by definition. If it exists, then it exists in all animals, not just a few.
Emotions or biases can vary in animals of the same species, but not instinct.
One lioness cannot have more "instinct" than another. Instinct is innate, it is born into the animal....according to the theory of instinct.

Happy now? "Belief with conviction." Cop out much? When you assert something in a manner implying it is predicated on some sort of objective bases or rationale, you are asserting it as fact/truth.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
All beleifs are justified in some way or another. I think the word you are trying to push is [b]proven. In your case, any beleif that cannot be scientifically proven is entirely invalid.
There is other justification besides the scientific. [/B]

Belief needs to be justified if one asserts it as true, beyond logical fallacy such as argument from personal incredulity/credulity.

Lord Urizen Perfection

Originally posted by ThePittman
For me a religion or religious belief would believe in a higher being such as God, Allah or what ever, the practice of meditation or chanting in a relaxation or trying to achieve some type of higher consciences is more of a philosophy or type of life style.

Scientology is a religion, and there is no diety present.

"Jedi" is now a religion and there is no deity present.

Buddhism is a religion and there is no diety present.

However, Buddhism can be flexibly formed into one's personal philosophy.

I guess you beleive that a religion must involve worship. I understand. Keep in mind though that a philosophy does not carry solid guidelines. A religion DOES.

Shakyamunison Nam Myoho Renge Kyo

Originally posted by ThePittman
For me a religion or religious belief would believe in a higher being such as God, Allah or what ever, the practice of meditation or chanting in a relaxation or trying to achieve some type of higher consciences is more of a philosophy or type of life style.

I am a Nichiren Buddhist. We do not believe in a higher power. We chant and perform Gongyo (reading from the Lotus sutra). This is my religion, a philosophy that acts like a religion.

ThePittman "Pitt Happens"

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Scientology is a religion, and there is no diety present.
"Jedi" is now a religion and there is no deity present.
Buddhism is a religion and there is no diety present.
However, Buddhism can be flexibly formed into one's personal philosophy.
I guess you beleive that a religion must involve worship. I understand. Keep in mind though that a philosophy does not carry solid guidelines. A religion DOES.

For me I don’t classify them as religions but more of a form of belief structure or a way of living your life but without a deity or deities I don’t see it as a religion, by the definition of religion I guess that would fall into play or by what the government calls a religion. Many of the religions that I have read about or people that I have talked to do not seem to have “solid” guidelines or rules and that is one of the issues that I have with religion, some do but others are just seem to make them up or what “feels” right.

Alliance Enforcer of the Republic

Originally posted by Nellinator
I am happier with this post because you actually used facts instead of vague arguments.

Sorry. Its just my style. I'm obsessive about fact checking, so writing dense facts is time consuming on my part. I will argue on large terms at first and then supply examples if people feel they are needed.

Originally posted by Nellinator
That said, I am not sure what motives could really be other than that I disagree about your belief that Christianity (as an institution) is hostile to science when history has shown many cases otherwise. At times, I admit there were times when the church was close-minded, but it was Christian men who reestablished science and opened the populace to education and reality. A rather nonhostile situation.

Yet, the institution still remained oppressive. Many men, Christian and otherwise, were brilliant. However, you will find in the great scientists a significant dismissal of Church doctrine in their work. Does Christianity make a man a lesser scientist: No. However, those men had to confront the church or church doctrine often for centuries. They questioned the church, this makes them, imo, better citizens and Christians. Christian men have contributed to science, however, these men are by for the norm and are nowhere near both what I would consider the "average" Christian of the time and the Christian doctrine of the time.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I am in fact saying that science was already in decline at the end of the Roman Empire. However, I would not contribute the failure of the reestablishment of science to Christianity, but rather to the lack of education and of civilization in general. These existed in many of the Islamic nations. However, do not ignore the science of the Byzantines. Greek fire comes to mind and the fact that their science did not crumble despite being Christian.

University education was continued throughout the Dark and Middle Ages. As I said, I agree science was in decline at the end of the Roman Empire, but it took a MILLENNIUM for some areas of science to even reach their levels in the Roman Empire. Science as a whole was not at all recovered at this point, just a few random schools of thought.

Besides. Greek fire is not the pinnacle of scientific achievement. I'm sure the Church had no problem employing it as a weapon. I'm referring to above all, natural philosophy.

Originally posted by Nellinator
You seem to be forgetting that Clement VII did not oppose Copernicus.

Yeah, except Revolutions wasn't published until after Copernicus' death with Osiander's anonymous, yet strategically placed preface stating that this was in no way a depiction of reality, which Copernicus clearly thought it was. The Church took the position of the preface.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Also, Galileo was allowed to teach his theory (as a hypothesis, mind you) which shows that the church was bent on wiping out a theory that was shown to have validity. They were overly cautious perhaps, but the science continued and was passed on.

You're are apparently forgetting that Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Descartes, Locke, and others all had books banned by the Christian church.

The books survived because people were intelligent enough to circumvent the church. From personal experience, if something is banned, I just want to read it more. its likely that similar feelings were felt then as well.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Kepler knew and accepted the basic Copernicus theory and modified it saying that the planets orbitted in an eliptical path, showing his acknowledgement of the sun being the center of the solar system. Kepler was not censored and his work was passed on.

Again, Kepler promoted heliocentrism as a model, not as a physical reality.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Galileo was simply unfortunate to have Urban as Pope and live during a temporary lapse in wisdom in the churches.

That "temporary" lapse lasted quite a while.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Newton was forced to defend himself because much of what he said was revolutionary.

Science often is. Yet, regardless the Church had no problem attacking every major philosopher of the time. Descartes, Bacon, Locke among them.

Originally posted by Nellinator
However, his theories in physics remained for hundreds of years, his calculus is still taught today and his astronomy was generally accepted in his time.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Newton had a successful career and despite removing God from his science he did not truly challenge anything that the churches held dear.

This statement is contradictory. Newton promoted empiricism and determinism, directly against Christian doctrine.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Mostly because science should not conflict with religion.

Science and religion don't conflict. Science and religious dogma/institutions conflict. There institutions have been on the wrong side.

Originally posted by Nellinator
It may not be that simple, but institutions are usually little more than the people that are part of them. Institutions may resist change more fiercly, but people do naturally resist change. Some hold on to some aspects of their beliefs more tightly than others leading to changes in some areas rather than others.

Its not simple, but the Christian church played a direct role in suppressing science. Every other culture in the world made leaps and bounds forward, yet Chirstians did not. Why? I ask. People clinging to their Christian beliefs as a life raft is a direct consequence of the Christian Church. The Church didn't support science, it didn't promote true science. It simply pointed to science that stood in congruence with its arbitrary rule and said "believe that."

Originally posted by Nellinator Thus eliberate changes must be made, but a lot of the time science does not change things, but rather fills in acknowledged holes in our knowledge.

No, religion fills in "holes" in scientific knowledge. And religion does so arbitrarily and without truth.

Originally posted by Nellinator
If Christianity suppressed science, I am not sure that Christian men would have reestablished it, but rather atheist or agnostic believers.

First off, atheism and agnosticism weren't real movements at the time. Many of these men had beliefs that today would be considered more in-line with atheism and agnosticism. (Agnosticism is one of the principles of the Moral Crisis) However, what we do see is that scientists while expressing Christian beliefs, express beliefs radically different from the Church of the time. THAT is the distinction.