Religion

[FierceDeity]

And these productive ways of which you speak do not include openly implying that your opponent is obstinate and brainwashed.

My observation is that he can't look past what he's been told about Christianity and he doesn't realize it. What is that called again???

[Olimar12345]

[MaestroUGC]

You guys were doing so well.

I'd like to go to sleep and not come back to a flaming wasteland. Let's see how this goes.

[Olimar12345]

[Brawler4Ever]

I'm a Mormon, and I've always enjoyed a mix of science and religion (not that every Mormon feels that way). If something seems supernatural (Jesus walking on water, feeding 5000, or Moses parting the Red Sea), I believe that it's either A) science that we have not discovered yet, or B) God working in a higher law that goes beyond our level of observable science.

My reasoning: if God is omnipotent, then He has all power. If He has all power, he can break any law that we observe. However, being a God of order, he binds Himself to laws so that He may be a perfect Judge over us. His breaking of our observable laws are within bounds that He set before we came into existence. This is my explanation concerning disease, war, and everything "wrong" in the world. God has the power to stop all of these things, but He won't because it wouldn't be fair to those that came before us. Our free will is our greatest gift. It is also our greatest curse. Most of these things are the direct result of human stupidity. Others, such as disease, are the result of life just being life. Bacteria wants to grow and thrive just as much as we do. Darwin says that the strongest will win (not in those exact words, but whatever). Lions eat zebra. We eat pigs and cows. Bacteria grows because that's what bacteria does. And viruses. And whatever else.

Is God happy that these things happen? I don't believe so. But he allows it for His own reasons. I believe that he wants us to learn from these experiences. I believe that he wants us to gain knowledge and wisdom from our struggles. But that's just me.

[Olimar12345]

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

Making this my computer wallpaper 

[Jub3r7]

"Science says ---" who is science

"the bible says " what is a bible

"picture quote even though the picture is right above it" yeah this picture is so great that we probably actually need it three times in a row.

[Jub3r7]

[blueflower999]

Took me a good hour to read through all this garbage. You guys are all ridiculous.

[FireArrow]

It was a nice discussion (for the most part) to which fierce ended elegantly (I don't see anyone disagreeing with him.) I have absolutely no idea why you guys are shaming this, are you somehow on a superior level of maturity where critical thinking about touchy subjects is wrong? Can you not handle someone disagreeing with you without going "dun insult muh sacred untouchable religon/science." Go make fun of YouTube comments or something.
 

I'm a Mormon, and I've always enjoyed a mix of science and religion (not that every Mormon feels that way). If something seems supernatural (Jesus walking on water, feeding 5000, or Moses parting the Red Sea), I believe that it's either A) science that we have not discovered yet, or B) God working in a higher law that goes beyond our level of observable science.

My reasoning: if God is omnipotent, then He has all power. If He has all power, he can break any law that we observe. However, being a God of order, he binds Himself to laws so that He may be a perfect Judge over us. His breaking of our observable laws are within bounds that He set before we came into existence. This is my explanation concerning disease, war, and everything "wrong" in the world. God has the power to stop all of these things, but He won't because it wouldn't be fair to those that came before us. Our free will is our greatest gift. It is also our greatest curse. Most of these things are the direct result of human stupidity. Others, such as disease, are the result of life just being life. Bacteria wants to grow and thrive just as much as we do. Darwin says that the strongest will win (not in those exact words, but whatever). Lions eat zebra. We eat pigs and cows. Bacteria grows because that's what bacteria does. And viruses. And whatever else.

Is God happy that these things happen? I don't believe so. But he allows it for His own reasons. I believe that he wants us to learn from these experiences. I believe that he wants us to gain knowledge and wisdom from our struggles. But that's just me.

What do you think of infant mortality? You can't exactly gain knowledge and wisdom from passing at 2 days old. I suppose you could say the reason that baby existed was as death fodder to help the parents grow as people, but that sounds really unfair for the baby.

Other than that I don't really have an qualms with what you said, most of it makes sense and doesn't try to directly defy the empirical evidence fierce was talking about.

[mikey]

I thought this friendly discussion was over last night

[Brawler4Ever]

What do you think of infant mortality? You can't exactly gain knowledge and wisdom from passing at 2 days old. I suppose you could say the reason that baby existed was as death fodder to help the parents grow as people, but that sounds really unfair for the baby.

Under the assumption that experience only exists in this life, your argument that "infant mortality is unfair" would be correct. However, I believe that we existed before this life, and that we will exist after this life. In both cases, we gain experiences that prepare us for eternity. In my belief, gaining a body is an essential step in our eternal progression, but gaining experiences in that body is not. It's more like a bonus, in a sense. So not having those experiences, while not ideal, is not the end of the world, per se. Every opportunity that a child (that dies prematurely) loses will be given to them at a later time.

I should also mention that I'm completely against the idea of unbaptized children going to Hell. There may be people here that believe that, and I'm fine with that, but I'm against the idea entirely. Just throwing that out there.

[Ruto]

It was a nice discussion (for the most part) to which fierce ended elegantly (I don't see anyone disagreeing with him.) I have absolutely no idea why you guys are shaming this, are you somehow on a superior level of maturity where critical thinking about touchy subjects is wrong? Can you not handle someone disagreeing with you without going "dun insult muh sacred untouchable religon/science." Go make fun of YouTube comments or something.

I actually do disagree with some stuff he said, mostly for his use of logical fallacies (not just him). It's just long and I have better things to do than to go through each point, but I might if I finish this thing I'm working on faster than expected. Some of you are better at critical thinking than others, I'll say that.

I don't think science is sacred, but it's harder to dispute things like genetics. I don't see how you can use in an argument something that's incorrect to begin with, whether you use logic (you'd draw a wrong conclusion) or it simply never happened.

What do you think of infant mortality? You can't exactly gain knowledge and wisdom from passing at 2 days old. I suppose you could say the reason that baby existed was as death fodder to help the parents grow as people, but that sounds really unfair for the baby.

I find that this is a problem with more than just babies/fetuses. People think that knowledge is all in one place, and it isn't. Can I complain that you're using the same religious source to support a religious idea? Sure, it's called circular reasoning and it's a fallacy and not a sound defense. Keep doing it, and throwing some intolerance and plain ignorance out there and it gets really annoying.

An interesting thing I read in the Japanese culture and history exhibit at the AMNH was that the Japanese (probably before its modernization) believed that during the first month of a newborn's life, it doesn't exactly have a soul. During that time, there is a struggle in which a soul is actually trying to latch onto the baby. Also, in the Middle Ages, it wasn't a crime to abort a baby before it starts kicking. No one called it an abortion. The herbs were just to make you have your period back.

[FireArrow]

@Brawler, in that context I can't disagree with you. Thanks for the explanation.

I actually do disagree with some stuff he said, mostly for his use of logical fallacies (not just him). It's just long and I have better things to do than to go through each point, but I might if I finish this thing I'm working on faster than expected. Some of you are better at critical thinking than others, I'll say that.

I'd be curious to see what you see wrong with what he said, though I think either way his conclusion is sound.

I don't think science is sacred, but it's harder to dispute things like genetics. I don't see how you can use in an argument something that's incorrect to begin with, whether you use logic (you'd draw a wrong conclusion) or it simply never happened.

This wasn't directed at you, I was including both religion in science to make my statement neutral. There are some idiotic atheists who do treat science like an extremist treats religion, but luckily no one like that is in this conversation.

I find that this is a problem with more than just babies/fetuses. People think that knowledge is all in one place, and it isn't. Can I complain that you're using the same religious source to support a religious idea? Sure, it's called circular reasoning and it's a fallacy and not a sound defense. Keep doing it, and throwing some intolerance and plain ignorance out there and it gets really annoying.

An interesting thing I read in the Japanese culture and history exhibit at the AMNH was that the Japanese (probably before its modernization) believed that during the first month of a newborn's life, it doesn't exactly have a soul. During that time, there is a struggle in which a soul is actually trying to latch onto the baby. Also, in the Middle Ages, it wasn't a crime to abort a baby before it starts kicking. No one called it an abortion. The herbs were just to make you have your period back.

I agree with this, but what can you do? How can you get someone in that loop to consider things outside of it when the belief itself prevents that?