|
Atheism
Sept 23, 2004 21:45:16 GMT -5
Post by embah on Sept 23, 2004 21:45:16 GMT -5
I know that's really confusing, but the best I can do. With religion, nothing tends to be too simple. yeah i know! lol so basically god plays all these roles, which are not actually 'him', but are a 'piece' of him.
|
|
Luigi
Bewildered Beginner
Posts: 0
Likes: 2
|
Atheism
Sept 23, 2004 22:01:49 GMT -5
Post by Luigi on Sept 23, 2004 22:01:49 GMT -5
With religion, nothing tends to be too simple. C: Except its followers.J: BAD DOG MARMOSET! C: It weas too good an oppurtunity to pass up. I didnm't really mean it, you knopw.
|
|
|
Atheism
Sept 24, 2004 15:56:17 GMT -5
Post by Soidanae on Sept 24, 2004 15:56:17 GMT -5
Strangely, I was under the assumption that religion's point was to simplify the world's mysteries.
After all, that's what is said about every other belief system.
|
|
|
Atheism
Sept 24, 2004 21:30:51 GMT -5
Post by redwine with valium on Sept 24, 2004 21:30:51 GMT -5
Strangely, I was under the assumption that religion's point was to simplify the world's mysteries. After all, that's what is said about every other belief system. Really? Where's the fun in simplicity? The truth is not always simple, especially about something as complicated as the creation and running of our world. And about God: It's not really "pieces of him". It's different ways of looking at the same individual. Again, see my "mother wife daughter" analogy. I'm quite fond of it.
|
|
|
Atheism
Sept 24, 2004 21:31:42 GMT -5
Post by Soidanae on Sept 24, 2004 21:31:42 GMT -5
I'm jsiut pointing out that the explanation for the origin of belief is oftentimes to explain the unexplainable.
|
|
|
Atheism
Sept 24, 2004 22:12:32 GMT -5
Post by redwine with valium on Sept 24, 2004 22:12:32 GMT -5
I'm jsiut pointing out that the explanation for the origin of belief is oftentimes to explain the unexplainable. And what is the origin of science? The exact same thing.
|
|
|
Atheism
Sept 25, 2004 8:42:34 GMT -5
Post by Soidanae on Sept 25, 2004 8:42:34 GMT -5
Right, but it..
One moment, let me try to remember my point.
There had been one.
|
|
Luigi
Bewildered Beginner
Posts: 0
Likes: 2
|
Atheism
Sept 25, 2004 13:15:17 GMT -5
Post by Luigi on Sept 25, 2004 13:15:17 GMT -5
Can I help you out here, Soi, even though I'm probably wrong?
Science has been proven, tested, and has a basis on reality. It's more believable than magic staffs. Yes, it's a way to explain things, but it's PROVEN, and not just made up, which I feel the bible is.
We may not have all the facts and evidence yet, but we're DEVELOPING. 2000 years ago, we couldn't go out in space, but now we can. In 2000 years, there will be more technology.
|
|
|
Atheism
Sept 25, 2004 21:04:33 GMT -5
Post by redwine with valium on Sept 25, 2004 21:04:33 GMT -5
Can I help you out here, Soi, even though I'm probably wrong? Science has been proven, tested, and has a basis on reality. It's more believable than magic staffs. Yes, it's a way to explain things, but it's PROVEN, and not just made up, which I feel the bible is. We may not have all the facts and evidence yet, but we're DEVELOPING. 2000 years ago, we couldn't go out in space, but now we can. In 2000 years, there will be more technology. I see your point, though I think you're missing mine. Everything is in the way you look at it. Science almost entirely consists of widely accepted notions that have not been 100% proven. That was the first thing our science teacher taught us, that science and its laws and theories are almost never concrete, but always open to new experiments and questions. And religion is seperate from science in that it does have all the answers, the tricky bit is getting your mind around it. Not sure if I got my own point through clearly there.....
|
|
|
Atheism
Sept 25, 2004 21:49:20 GMT -5
Post by Soidanae on Sept 25, 2004 21:49:20 GMT -5
I think you did, in that Science, according to you, doesn't have every answer it claims to, while religion has more than it claims to.
|
|
|
Atheism
Sept 25, 2004 21:52:03 GMT -5
Post by redwine with valium on Sept 25, 2004 21:52:03 GMT -5
I think you did, in that Science, according to you, doesn't have every answer it claims to, while religion has more than it claims to. Yeah, that's about it. I tend to be a bit wordy, in case nobody's noticed
|
|
|
Atheism
Sept 25, 2004 22:14:01 GMT -5
Post by Soidanae on Sept 25, 2004 22:14:01 GMT -5
Don't worry, we did. Anyways, can't argue with that, really...since it still comes down to a matter of faith. I'd say that science has every answer it claims to, and religion has most of them. And I'd say Douglas Adams has the most important one of all.
|
|
|
Atheism
Sept 25, 2004 22:18:09 GMT -5
Post by redwine with valium on Sept 25, 2004 22:18:09 GMT -5
Don't worry, we did. Anyways, can't argue with that, really...since it still comes down to a matter of faith. I'd say that science has every answer it claims to, and religion has most of them. And I'd say Douglas Adams has the most important one of all. I do love Douglas Adams. Which answer are we referring to?
|
|
Luigi
Bewildered Beginner
Posts: 0
Likes: 2
|
Atheism
Sept 25, 2004 22:18:31 GMT -5
Post by Luigi on Sept 25, 2004 22:18:31 GMT -5
Religion has more explanations because they don't have to go throug the tedium of getting actual facts. While NASA's building space probes, one could pull an entire religion out of ones ass. No offense.
|
|
|
Atheism
Sept 25, 2004 22:23:34 GMT -5
Post by Soidanae on Sept 25, 2004 22:23:34 GMT -5
I do love Douglas Adams. Which answer are we referring to? 6x9=42. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than plenty of junk either science or religion has created.
|
|