People, realize that until the last 200 years or so (give or take) there really wasn't a better way to explain the world then through religion. Most people who today don't care for religion would have been fine be faithful and intelligent at the same time. Now that we have science, a disproportionally high amount of relgious people today are ignorant.
edited 15th Nov '10 6:45:17 PM by Erock
If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.^ That's ... not really how it works. A) Science wasn't "invented" in the last 200 years. We've had sciences pretty much as long as we've had the written word, and though increases in our ability to observe and measure natural phenomenon has made obsolete certain doctrinal precepts, it has done little to address the core facets of a religious belief system.
Ultimately, DOCTRINE can contradict science, but RELIGION cannot (I realize this runs the risk of starting a semantics debate, but roll with me for a sec), because ultimately religion is about addressing those questions to which we CANNOT reach an objective, measurable answer — why are we here? What is right and what is wrong? Were we created or did we simply come to be? It's true that once upon a time explanations for lightning or the tides were a matter of faith, but just because we now know that there are rational explanations for those things does not invalidate the religious notion that there are some questions about the universe to which we will NEVER have clear answers, and thus can only be addressed through speculation or faith.
The sciences have grown more sophisticated yes, but for thousands of years we've had functional forms of medicine, metallurgy, architecture, administration, animal husbandry, even chemistry — these are all sciences, even if they aren't as sexy as astrophysics or evolutionary biology, and weren't nearly as advanced as they are today.
edited 15th Nov '10 7:30:37 PM by TheBadinator
Yeah, but the real notion of a hypothesis is much more recent. People saying "Oh hey we can grind up herbs to help this person cure their sickness" is not really the same meaning as "science" as it's currently understood today. Not just in a "They were wrong" kind of way, so much as in a "that was not the right method to inductively prove things" sort of way.
But yeah-totally nitpicking here. CARRY ON.
edited 15th Nov '10 7:32:09 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
If your born in any sane family and you utter the words I hear god speak to me they'd get you help
If your in catholic family, they ship you off to the Vatican and make you Pope.
If your in a evangelical family and you say that the responses is We all do.
edited 16th Nov '10 1:33:28 AM by americanbadass
[[User Banned]]_ My Pm box ix still open though, I think?Joan Of Arc. Sometimes hearing voices isn't a bad thing.
[[youtube:TfEO3aLaaMk&feature=related]]
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?I can't really get around the concept. The only voice I hear is mine. It NEVER shuts up.
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?Why not? It could be. But the Catholics at least tend to be very skeptic, and test that stuff. Why? Because if people start laiming they hear GOD, that is a bit of a challenge to their authority, and we can't have that. Same deal for Demonic Posession, they very seldom acknowledge it.
edited 16th Nov '10 1:42:24 AM by RawPower
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?There was article released this weekend ,it was on tv tropes in the fora somewhere I think IJBM. About the Catholics training close to 100 priests for exorcisms .
Also I'm a non-believer on god(s), demons(Evil spirits) are still up in the air for me, but I'd say 99.9% of the time it's a mental disorder.
edited 16th Nov '10 1:49:01 AM by americanbadass
[[User Banned]]_ My Pm box ix still open though, I think?100 priests for a religion of a billion people? That's how seriously they take this.
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?Wait. I'll try to be more prceise. There seems to be an illusion of transparency between us (we're thinking we're understanding, but we aren't).
Given the large number of Catholics, that there are only a hundred priests being trained for exorcisms seems to indicate that either possessions are few and far between, or that the church is only forming them for nominal/ceremonial/traditional reasons, you know, like British Beefeaters and all that. I wouldn't be surprised if the exorcists were sorta investigators, and that 99% of the alledged posessions being proven by them to be something else entirely.
And... a hundred priests as bodyguards? Why not hire actual bodyguards?
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?This is a very common viewpoint, but I'm convinced that it's not correct. Religious doctrine can contradict scientific data, but the scientific method can be, and in nearly all cases is, contradictory with religion itself.
The scientific method is not a single rigid investigative model
, but scientific investigation by its nature seeks to exclude all methods that cannot be expected to produce true results, and to discard premises that have a low likelihood of being true. Any religion which encourages people to hold factual beliefs, rather than opinions, on faith or poor evidence, is in conflict with the scientific method.
This doesn't mean that a person cannot be religious and conduct science, but it does follow that a person who conducts science and is religious has either compartmentalized their thinking or hasn't internalized the idea of how science really works
. This doesn't necessarily mean that they can't conduct science well in their chosen field, but it does mean that they're not applying an understanding of scientific investigation to all aspects of their life.

I meant people in the thread.
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.