Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
FREIGHT FREE
in Australia

Edelrid: "Ultralight Helmet" (Turquoise) Mid blue .Fits 54 - 60cm Great heavy duty all-rounder. SUPER SPECIAL for a short time only!  $79.00
21% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Poll Option Votes Graph
Athiest 90
69% 
Buddhist 5
4% 
Christian 23
18% 
Muslim 1
1% 
Jewish 1
1% 
Hindu 1
1% 
Other 8
6% 
Don't know due too many choices. 2
2% 

 Page 4 of 11. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 206
Author
O.T - Religion & Climbing Poll.

foreverabumbly
4/12/2009
4:13:36 PM
On 4/12/2009 Wendy wrote:
>This sounds like an excuse to deny any conflict between science and religion.
> How can it be bad sciene to try and disprove the existence of god? Surely
>science is about trying to disprove things?

its kinda why people say that creationism shouldnt be taught in schools, that religion has no place in science class. So if it has no place in science; how can science therefore disprove it?

That would make the people who are trying to disprove the existence of God the arbiter of whether the "evidence" they seek is sound and/or objective. Pretty handy way of never been wrong.

on another note. Here is a list of famous scientists that discovered remarkable things, things that form the basis of modern day science; who were also all christian.

Physics—Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
Chemistry—Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
Biology—Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
Geology—Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
Astronomy—Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
Mathematics—Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler

wallwombat
4/12/2009
4:34:17 PM
I don't think Galileo had much of a choice about being a Christian.

rodw
4/12/2009
4:34:24 PM
Creationism is not based on science its religious views only, so shouldnt be taught in schools under the guise of anything but voluntary religion classes because that is what its is..religious..to do so would bascially be state sponsored christian views being imposed on everybody.

Intellegent design on the other hand is a sneaky way of trying to get creationism under the science radar and should likewise be dismissed as religious in nature and only taught in voluntary religious class and not in a science class.

All those people you quoted if christians (I dont know if true and couldnt be bothered googling) is irrelevent because the theories they came up with that are still in use today have been proven by science not because the church said it was fact. (in fact in several cases the church originally opposed their views classing them as heresy).



kieranl
4/12/2009
4:36:31 PM
On 4/12/2009 Sabu wrote:
>Point taken, but to be clear mental illness and the concept of abnormality
>are
>interrelated. You can't talk about one without talking about the other.
>And introducing
>that idea has a massive flow on effect which was what i was trying to
>point out.
That is to confuse illness and abnormality. For example, it used to be quite normal to be infested with worms and to suffer the illnesses associated with that condition. So those illnesses were normality. So normal is not necessarily ideal.
As a large number of the world's population appears to have some religious belief, religious belief can be considered normal though I might contend that it is not necessarily ideal.

foreverabumbly
4/12/2009
4:43:23 PM
On 4/12/2009 rodw wrote:
>Creationism is not based on science its religious views only, so shouldnt
>be taught in schools under the guise of anything but voluntary religion
>classes because that is what its is..religious..to do so would bascially
>be state sponsored christian views being imposed on everybody.

My point is that if religion has no place in science, then how can you use science to disprove it?

>All those people you quoted if christians (I dont know if true and couldnt
>be bothered googling) is irrelevent because the theories they came up with
>that are still in use today have been proven by science not because the
>church said it was fact. (in fact in several cases the church originally
>opposed their views classing them as heresy).

just showing you can have a little faith and still be a scientist. That the two worlds dont have to collide.
hero
4/12/2009
4:59:25 PM
"I don't think Galileo had much of a choice about being a Christian."

Or Bruno for that matter.

And it is pointless to say these people were all Christian. It was the dominant paradigm and it was dangerous to say otherwise. I can equally point out a lot of famous thinkers who weren't, starting with all the Islamic thinkers and Indian mathmeticians whose legacy we don't validate.

And I point to a whole bunch of fcukknuckles who were/are Christian as well. Abbot and Bush spring to mind first.

rodw
4/12/2009
5:05:57 PM

>My point is that if religion has no place in science, then how can you
>use science to disprove it?

Sciences job is to disprove everything be it religion, climate change, big bang theory, little green men, Santa claus etc ...if it cant be proved it is only a theory not fact...thats is sciences role me thinks. Just becuase someone says it is so becase gods/allaha/L Ron Hubard said so dosnt mean science shouldnt be allowed to disprove it. I think it would be better said religion has no place in setting what science can study.

>just showing you can have a little faith and still be a scientist. That the two worlds >dont have to collide.

I totally agree and in mainstream I dont think they do...its just the the ones at either end with extreme views that have issues and they are just as blind as each other in not even entertaining another persons views or letting them have those views...but then again thats unfrotunately human nature and its what causes most of the world angst..the real question is wether we are design by god that way or evolved/adapted due our environment? :)

All I care about its what Im doing on my day off on Sunday...and one thing I know.....it wont be spent in church. :)

nmonteith
4/12/2009
5:10:05 PM
I only recently discovered that my grandfather was a raving Commie in the 50s. I always wondered why my grandparents seem to be entirely anti-church. Apparently he had to hide his beliefs behind a Christian veil for many years as that's what his (country Queensland) community expected.
Wendy
4/12/2009
5:36:43 PM
On 4/12/2009 ambyeok wrote:

>
>There is organised religion and then there is the people who pervert those
>institutions for their own purpose. If we condemn organised religion for
>this alone then we must also condemn government, community groups, sporting
>bodies, charities, etc.

I actually think that organised religion started with a bunch of those intentions rather than a few people perverting them along the way. It seems a little too convenient for me that a bunch of educated white heterosexual men could be "revealed" a system of religion that saw women as evil temptresses and the possessions of men and homosexuality as a sin. How did Islam come to say women had to be covered from head to toe? Totally at random and it could equally likely have been men? Did God say contraception was a terrible thing to the pope just because it was good for everyone? Or maybe possibly because it kept women from controlling their own bodies and thus having more freedom to do their own thing? I am of the theory that the creation mass religion was a way of controlling the people and developing a society that best suited the needs of those seeking more power.

I think govt, community groups, sporting bodies etc are a little different. Sporting bodies don't quite have the influence to control the minds and behaviour of the people on a large scale. Sure, govts have done, but they don't generally claim to have extraterrestrial revelation that apparantly cannot be challenged. They usually have some theory and reasoning behind them. And in a fair and reasonable modern country, you can get rid of them if you don't like them. There's more than a few laws that have come from religion too, even in so called secular societies, which I definately find problematic.

>
>Lets not forget that the 'religion' of patriotism has caused many and
>much the such problems as you attribute to organised religion.

I won't be disagreeing that lots of other sources of such problems. But I do think they too are largely about power and control and utilise fears and needs of the people to grow. stronger.
Wendy
4/12/2009
5:56:09 PM
On 4/12/2009 foreverabumbly wrote:

>
>its kinda why people say that creationism shouldnt be taught in schools,
>that religion has no place in science class. So if it has no place in science;
>how can science therefore disprove it?

But religion isn't science - why would it be in the science class? Indiginous people the world over have stories about how the world was created - they aren't in science classes either, because they are not science. But they are at least as valid as the christian story of how the world was created.

>
>That would make the people who are trying to disprove the existence of
>God the arbiter of whether the "evidence" they seek is sound and/or objective.
>Pretty handy way of never been wrong.

If you want religion to be assessed by science, you need to accept the tools of science to do so. The evidence of religion is basically faith and revelation, and if you are religious, than that I guess is the evidence that's important to you. But it is not and cannot be evidence of a sort accepted by science, or indeed by any sound minded individual who has never heard of christianity before if you want to convince them that Genesis is the way the world formed or that there is some being called God hanging out somewhere outside of this world.

The reliance on faith and revelation is an equally handy way of never being wrong. I haven't had a revelation so I don't know any better, but I admit I'm not holding out for one. Still, surely if God was out there, he'd get a bit sick of my cynicism and give me a hint? In all seriousness, I think if you believe and that's all good for you, that's fine, but the ways of knowing in religion are such that (unless you can tell me of other ways of supporting the existance of God that could be assessed by one who doesn't have faith or revelation) any Joe Blow could wander up with a claim of divine knowedge and start asserting their power and control using it. We usually call these cults these days. Texas had a rather famous one. Or the order of the solar temple. How do we know Genesis is any more reasonable than Xenu and the aliens? Or believing that our universe was sneezed out of the nose of a giant intergalatic goat and fearing the arrival of the great green hanky? We need some way of assessing the difference between these claims to religious knowledge and "legitimate" claims to religious knowledge.


ambyeok
4/12/2009
6:23:02 PM
On 4/12/2009 Wendy wrote:
>I actually think that organised religion started with a bunch of those intentions rather
>than a few people perverting them along the way. It seems a little too convenient for
>me that a bunch of educated white heterosexual men could be "revealed" a system of
>religion that saw women as evil temptresses and the possessions of men and
>homosexuality as a sin. How did Islam come to say women had to be covered from
>head to toe?

You will offend a lot of people by claiming that organised religion was started with a bunch of those intentions and you do not do justice to the corrupting influence of the evolution of those religions which almost certainly now bare little resemblence to their original form. The point you raise and on which I agree is that organised religion has a habit of carrying on the prevailing traditions of a distant past by encasing archaic ideas in the teachings; furthermore, as the practice and teachings evolve, are duplicated, transcribed and translated personal agenda's come into play.

On 4/12/2009 Wendy wrote:
> I am of the theory that the creation mass religion was a way of controlling the people and developing a society that best suited the needs of those seeking more power.

Jesus, the prophet Mohammed (may he rest in peace) and Gautama Buddha were all in my humble opinion supremely enlightened beings. I wasnt around when these people were sharing their ideas but I am pretty sure the Buddha did not personally benefit from sharing his. I am astounded that you can conclude there was a pre-meditated effort to create a system of control. I am far less astounded that these movements were attractive to those wishing to further their personal power and influence for their own means.

On 4/12/2009 Wendy wrote:
>I won't be disagreeing that lots of other sources of such problems. But I do think
>they too are largely about power and control and utilise fears and needs of the
>people to grow. stronger.

My point is that those seeking power will latch onto anything that can increase their sphere of influence, they will then corrupt it to their own end. Religion is a handy vehicle, much like politics and nationalism. Lets not start blaming organised religion for the failings and inadequacies of the human condition.


ambyeok
4/12/2009
6:33:58 PM
On 4/12/2009 Wendy wrote:
>We need some way of assessing the difference between these claims to religious
>knowledge and "legitimate" claims to religious knowledge.

Are you serious? a "legitimate" claim to religious knowledge is by definition 'science'- the proving of an idea through emperical data.

evanbb
4/12/2009
6:35:13 PM
On 4/12/2009 foreverabumbly wrote:

>My point is that if religion has no place in science, then how can you
>use science to disprove it?

One does not use science to 'disprove' religion; one uses science to show all the places religion does not exist. And the place where God exists is getting smaller all the time. 'God of the Gaps'.

foreverabumbly
4/12/2009
6:38:53 PM
On 4/12/2009 Wendy wrote:

>But religion isn't science - why would it be in the science class? Indiginous
>people the world over have stories about how the world was created - they
>aren't in science classes either, because they are not science. But they
>are at least as valid as the christian story of how the world was created.

this was kinda my point, you cant define science using religion, and I dont believe you can define religion using science, hence why trying to do so would be bad science.

We need some way of assessing the difference
>between these claims to religious knowledge and "legitimate" claims to
>religious knowledge.
>
well, we will all know; or I guess not not, when we die.

foreverabumbly
4/12/2009
6:49:14 PM
On 4/12/2009 evanbb wrote:
>
>One does not use science to 'disprove' religion; one uses science to show
>all the places religion does not exist.

but if you cant define spiritual things using scientific processes then how are you able to demonstrate areas that they dont exist?

rodw
4/12/2009
6:56:40 PM

>Lets not start blaming organised religion for the failings and inadequacies
>of the human condition.

I think organised religion is a manifestation of this human condition so hard not to condemn one without the other....I think its the grouping and doctrines of the various religions that tends to push that groups agenda of the day, rather than following what the original author had intended....not surprising really since any written data can be mis-quoted, twisted to support any whacked out idea, be it blowing up the non believers in some market in bagdad or blowing up some doctor in the US because he does Abortions.

Religion is not the issue, its the politics behind it that is and I dont know of any group of people be it the catholic church or your local scout group dosnt have someone pushing there own agenda..the problem with religion is many more people take it as fact without question and go to extremes to ensure there views get accross...and that can only be done if an "organisation" is behind it to push the agenda forward.

Believe or disbelieve what you want too...just don't force it down someone elses throat or expect them to follow your rules...the only rule you should follow is respect your fellow man and everything else falls into place.

Just remember whatever you believe/disbelieve dosnt make you smarter, nicer, better than the next person...its how you treat the next man that counts..now its time for a group hug :)


D.Lodge
4/12/2009
7:42:37 PM
Science is proof without any certanty
Creationism (religion) is certanty without any proof.

(man i can not spell ;P)

ambyeok
4/12/2009
8:00:15 PM
On 4/12/2009 rodw wrote:
>
>>Lets not start blaming organised religion for the failings and inadequacies
>>of the human condition.
>
>I think organised religion is a manifestation of this human condition
>so hard not to condemn one without the other....

Ill pay that rodw. As an aside, even the awesome might of the combined power of chockstone cannot solve how a single humble quickdraw became unclipped, I do not hold out hope of us solving the religious debate.

But let me for a moment switch from defending the creationists to perhaps rattling their cages. I present this for your thought and criticism, unqualified as I am to make such arguments. Jesus, the prophet Mohammed (may he rest in peace) and the Buddha were all enlightened beings trying to convey much the same truth. Each conveyed it in such a way as was appropriate to the culture, understanding and climate of the time and the people who received it. Imagine trying to explain an airplane to a caveman, fast-forward two thousand years and your explanation, taken literally, might not make too much sense; it certainly will not hold up against the science of the time, but it is no less a genuine representation of the truth. I believe there is only one truth and we will either see it through the frame of refence appropriate to our circumstances or feel no need to see it at all.

I do not try to refute the beliefs of any person, I simply present the ideas which give meaning and merit to my own individual circumstances. We as humans do or believe precious little which does not suit our own ends.
Wendy
4/12/2009
8:45:06 PM
On 4/12/2009 ambyeok wrote:

>
>You will offend a lot of people by claiming that organised religion was
>started with a bunch of those intentions and you do not do justice to the
>corrupting influence of the evolution of those religions which almost certainly
>now bare little resemblence to their original form. The point you raise
>and on which I agree is that organised religion has a habit of carrying
>on the prevailing traditions of a distant past by encasing archaic ideas
>in the teachings; furthermore, as the practice and teachings evolve, are
>duplicated, transcribed and translated personal agenda's come into play.
>
>On 4/12/2009 Wendy wrote:
>> I am of the theory that the creation mass religion was a way of controlling
>the people and developing a society that best suited the needs of those
>seeking more power.
>
>Jesus, the prophet Mohammed (may he rest in peace) and Gautama Buddha
>were all in my humble opinion supremely enlightened beings. I wasnt around
>when these people were sharing their ideas but I am pretty sure the Buddha
>did not personally benefit from sharing his. I am astounded that you can
>conclude there was a pre-meditated effort to create a system of control.
>I am far less astounded that these movements were attractive to those wishing
>to further their personal power and influence for their own means.

I guess what enables me to conclude the premeditated effort is that I am by no means convinced that these people actually existed. I'm not really throwing Buddhism into the mix as I'm not aware of it having the same sort of oppressive, judgemental, mandated practices, nor being involved in violent conflicts. Whether they existed or not, somewhere very early on in the organisation of the religion, a whole bunch of ideas of social control popped up that i'm not really very fond of and they doubtlessly were built upon extensively by other people. Looking at the development of modern "religions" it seems that those who promote their cause are the worst offenders. Those people who really are good examples for the world don't tend to promote themselves much. By which, I don't mean to say, that these people, if they existed, were necessarily of the offensive type, I don't know. This might all be offensive to other people, but I'm not criticising the intentions of individuals who do believe in all this, I'm just saying, I don't believe and I'm very dubious of the intentions behind mass religion, because at whatever point they originated, they have undoubtedly been used for social control and the spread of power of certain privilidged populations.

>

>Lets not start blaming organised religion for the failings and inadequacies
>of the human condition.

I'm not blaming it, I'm just saying that I think it is a vehicle of them.

Also, I've been distracted by visitors and beers and this has been sitting unfinished on my computer for hours so may seem totally out of order now ...
>
>
Wendy
4/12/2009
8:50:10 PM
On 4/12/2009 ambyeok wrote:
>On 4/12/2009 Wendy wrote:
>>We need some way of assessing the difference between these claims to
>religious
>>knowledge and "legitimate" claims to religious knowledge.
>
>Are you serious? a "legitimate" claim to religious knowledge is by definition
>'science'- the proving of an idea through emperical data.

Why not be serious? How am I to tell the difference between a kooky cult and a legitimate religion? I still want to know if that goat is as valid as genesis. If there's no way of assessing legimiate claims to religious knowledge outside of science and no way of assessing them with science, how do we know anything?

 Page 4 of 11. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 206
There are 206 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints