NInja'd from the previous page, but hopefully not in a way that will restart the discussion of rhetoric instead of religion:
Zcorp wrote:In Response to SpaceMilk, May 14th:
I'm not arguing human nature btw. I'm arguing against a structure, I suppose primarily the Bible, that condones in hatred and intolerance. States that you should stone a women for getting raped, that a man laying with another man as you would a woman offends God. This IS what the primary structure of the Christian faith states this and various other horrid things. Yet its worshipped.
First of all: Do not, under any circumstances, use the word "worshipped" as relates to the Bible, Mary, or anything that isn't God. This is a touchy subject for a lot of Christians, particularly Catholics. There is a definite line between "holds as sacred (definition: "entitled to veneration or religious respect
by association with divinity or divine things; holy." copied from dictionary.com)" and "worships".
Second of all, if you want to say "followed literally by a very small percent of people in the world", ok then. If you want to say "there is a small percent that follows some of the ridiculous precepts but not all", ok then. If you want to actually be correct and say "there is a very complex transition in the Bible from Judaism to Christianity so Christians do not follow the laws of the Old Testament literally but instead through the lens of personal morality as set forth by Jesus in the New Testament", great! You're on the road to a more correct, less offensive, less generalizing view of Christianity as a whole! Sorry, but I have no patience for people who use a small subset of fundamentalist believers to paint a picture of the entire set, all because they didn't take the time to research how things actually were.
Third, I think you realize that the Biblical precepts you quote are not Christian beliefs today. The Bible is partially a historical document (Old Testament), from the point of view of seeing how Judaism developed and eventually became Christianity through the teachings of Jesus Christ, and partly a document containing moral guidelines and interpretations (New Testament). Now, please go find an actual Biblical passage in the New Testament that condones hatred and real
intolerance. And by real
intolerance, I mean the Fred-Phelps-style, "fags should and will burn in hell" approach, rather than the REAL Biblical approach which is "hate the sin, love the sinner". Once you do that, we can actually have a real discussion.
Now lets compare this to science
Wikipedia wrote:Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
No where does the structure of the scientific method mention that you must harm people to be a good Scientist. I don't imagine that you partake in the majority of actions the Bible suggests, but it still suggests it. You don't feel this is flawed? That maybe the the its sub-sects needs to take a look at its foundations and re-evaluate using this Book as it is as a path to find God. What I'm not doing is arguing the nature of God, which it seems your leaning towards please correct me if this is false. I am arguing that Christianity, the Christianity that is based on the Bible is hugely flawed in its foundation and for some reason no one is willing to correct this.
Did you read the above posts about the Magesterium of science and religion? Those posts were most excellent. And no, Science does not suggest a framework of morality. It suggests a framework of reality, of how things truly are. Based on our studies of science, we can learn how to react to reality so we survive and therefore be better animals. However that does not tell us how we should react to reality in order to be better people
Here's a rather silly thought experiment: If we used Science as a medium for determining our reality, then survival would be the utmost ideal since that is what evolution clearly gears us towards. The best survivor who does the best job of passing on their genes is the best human. So rape would not only be acceptable, but encouraged so that you could pass on your genes. Murdering someone who is infringing on your resources is a great idea if the resources are somewhat rare - otherwise you won't survive! Ok, yes, if we didn't have our ingrained prejudices against rape and murder, MAYBE we could fathom a situation where we would believe something like this. But once again, such a belief system doesn't do anything for us but make us better animals
, not better humans.
Lastly you quoted a short paragraph from Wikipedia about the scientific method
, for Christ's sake (no pun intended!), and then triumphantly declared that the scientific method as shown on Wikipedia doesn't tell you to harm anyone! I hate to say this, because I do agree with you, but you didn't prove anything. You made such a jump, with such a ridiculous starting place, it was completely nonsensical.
Zcorp wrote:And "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is found across a variety of different fields in science. Not only is it found there it is improved upon.
Emphatically no. The Golden Rule is not found in nature. The Golden Rule of Nature is: "Do unto others before they do unto you and screw you." The Golden Rule is an invention of humans. We subvert the natural order of the world when we use the Biblical Golden Rule.
Zcorp wrote:Science gives us tools to think. It's goal is to give understanding of existence.
It talks of morals within the fields of at least psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology and political science. And gives reasoning for those morals without requiring faith. So it most definitely encroaches on religious domain. You seem to have a misconception of what science is. Empirical evidence can disprove false morals. It can also give us morals.
Hopefully I answered this sufficiently above, but once again: I think you have the misconception of science, as well as what "morals" are. Once again, the conception of what is "moral" comes from a decision to define what is right and wrong when reacting to reality in a non-animalistic way. There is no way that empirical evidence can disprove false morals, because morals are formed as a result of
empirical evidence. Could you change your morals based on a change in the empirical evidence before you? Yes, but I wouldn't call that "disproving" them. Nor would I say that science had given you a new moral - it just gave you the framework and the information so you could begin to edit your moral code. Also, by "moral belief" I mean, a belief that determines how you act and what you should do if you want to be a good person
Also, I can't think of a moral belief that has ever been disproven by science, but maybe you can think of one. The biggest thing that has been disproven by science is the Creationist belief, and that is NOT (I repeat, NOT!) a moral belief. It is a historical belief which has most assuredly been disproven by science, and most Christians accept that it has been disproven.
Zcorp wrote:Christianity makes claims about how existence works yes. Thats all it does. The lack of over lap is in structure, not what the structure speaks of.
Ok here I think is where you are going wrong. In the simplest form: We pick the "who" and the "what". Science answers the "how". Religion answers the "why", or more specifically, "what is the meaning". There *is no* overlap if you truly understand it.
I'm going to go ahead and answer this one, even though I don't feel it meets my request for quoting a Biblical passage that proves intolerance:
Zcorp wrote:He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
God is intolerant those who care more for father, mother, son or daughter then God. Those who do not follow him also met with that intolerance.
Well ok, I won't answer it, I'll just reiterate what Mogh said: "God rejecting those who reject Him is exactly the thing you'd expect given Christianity's message." But you came up with a pretty awful example of intolerance, especially when you started your intolerance argument in relation to "stoning" and such things. So far your argument has been: "The Bible promotes stoning and intolerance!" Example please? "Uhh . . . God says people who don't love him aren't worthy of him!" Ok well, that has *nothing* to do with how you started, so you've completely changed your base argument, and the example you gave has nothing to do with anything you've said so far.
Ok last cherry-picking quote:
Zcorp wrote:The problem with intolerance is lack of acceptance.
Once again, emphatically no. Intolerance is not a lack of acceptance of someone's belief. You can completely disagree with and not accept someone's view, but still tolerate it. Tolerance is merely respect for someone's view. True tolerance is being able to respectfully disagree with someone, and respectfully debate with them about, without deteriorating into straw-man and ad hominem attacks. Tolerance implies that your respect of others' belief systems enables you to better search for the Truth, because you don't spend your time belittling people who disagree with you - instead you spend your time in dialogue so one or both of you can be improved by it.