attack religion without fear

Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by Gordon Gekko, Aug 12, 2006.

  1. shipeichong

    shipeichong Guest

    Hi, the one who uses religion for their own agendas are usually those who are intelligent, wise and those who have in them some form of charisma.

    However, there are also a second group of people who are known as the sheeps. These people will follow anybody who appear charismatic, and logical.

    The majority of the terrorists who are muslims happened to be in the sheep category of the group of people. That is, they are gullible and easily deceived by the people around them.

    There will always be such people everywhere, no matter what countries, what religion. Think about it this way, even in the trade of trading, there are such people. The people who blindly paid thousands of dollars to join trading courses started by some people who are out to cheat them of their money.

    Well, any religion, like any other group in this world can be used by those whose hearts are not right to fool those whose are gullible. Religion is a tool used by the wise to fool the gullible. This always happens, throughout history.

    It just so happens that this time the religion that is being used in islam.
     
    #11     Aug 14, 2006
  2. "Religion is regarded by the common man as true, the wise man as false, and the rulers as useful."

    ~Seneca
     
    #12     Aug 14, 2006
  3. Aapex

    Aapex




    The inconclusive case of scientific atheism

    The twentieth century has seen many atheist scientists insist that science has eliminated belief in God. The Oxford zoologist and atheist propagandist Richard Dawkins is a good example of this kind of writer. His simplistic overstatements are regularly criticized by other scientists as representing a serious abuse of the scientific method. The simple truth is that the natural sciences neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. So either we have to give up this discussion as meaningless, or we settle it on other grounds.


    You will have no problem finding writers who talk about the “limitless powers of science” to explain things, or who argue that only scientific knowledge can be taken seriously. Here is the British atheist writer Bertrand Russell on this point: “Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.” Yet this is a ludicrous overstatement. First, it is not actually a scientific statement, so it disqualifies itself as being true knowledge! Yet more seriously, it would mean that we can never answer questions about the meaning of life, even from an atheist perspective—something that Russell seems to overlook.


    Yet science has its limits. That’s no criticism of science, by the way – just a recognition of its boundaries. Within those boundaries, it is highly competent. But outside them, it cannot deliver the simple answers that some hoped for. Sir Peter Medawar, who won a Nobel Prize for Medicine for his discovery of acquired immunological tolerance, was well aware of the limits of science. His words deserve to be pondered:


    The existence of a limit to science is, however, made clear by its inability to answer childlike elementary questions having to do with first and last things—questions such as “How did everything begin?’; ‘What are we all here for?’; ‘What is the point of living?’


    The point is clear: science is wonderful when it comes to discovering the chemical structure of planetary atmospheres, the cause of cancer, or finding a cure for blood poisoning. But can it tell us why we are here? Or whether there is a God or not? No. It has its limits. And those who insist—quite wrongly—that science demands or necessitates or proves atheism have some serious explaining to do. Let’s hear Sir Peter again:


    There is no quicker way for a scientist to bring discredit upon himself and upon his profession than roundly to declare—particularly when no declaration of any kind is called for—that science knows, or soon will know, the answers to all questions worth asking, and that questions which do not admit a scientific answer are in some way non-questions or ‘pseudo-questions’ that only simpletons ask and only the gullible profess to be able to answer.


    Let’s be clear about this. It is perfectly possible to interpret the natural sciences in atheist, theistic and agnostic ways. The sciences can be “spun” in ways making them support disbelief in God, belief in God, or scepticism. But the sciences demand none of these interpretations. Stephen Jay Gould, widely regarded as America’s greatest evolutionary biologist before his recent death from cancer, was no religious believer. But he was adamant that his own religious scepticism could not be derived from the sciences.


    To say it for the umpteenth million time - science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.


    Gould rightly insists that science can work only with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny the existence of God. And those who argue that it disproves God have just lost the plot, imposing their atheism on a neutral science.


    God is simply not an empirical hypothesis which can be checked out by the scientific method. As Stephen Jay Gould and others have insisted, the natural sciences are not capable of adjudicating, negatively or positively, on the God-question. It lies beyond their legitimate scope. There is simply no logically watertight means of arguing from observation of the world to the existence, or non-existence of God. This has not stopped people from doing so, as a casual survey of writings on both sides of the question indicates. But it does mean that these “arguments” are suggestive, and nothing more. The grand idea that atheism is the only option for a thinking person has long since passed away, being displaced by a growing awareness of the limitations placed on human knowledge, and an increased expectation of humility in the advocation of religious choices.


    Two major surveys of the religious beliefs of scientists, carried out at the beginning and end of the twentieth century, bear witness to a highly significant trend. One of the most widely held beliefs within atheist circles has been that, as the beliefs and practices of the “scientific” worldview became increasingly accepted within western culture, the number of practicing scientists with any form of religious beliefs would dwindle to the point of insignificance. A survey of the religious views of scientists, undertaken in 1916, showed that about 40% of scientists had some form of personal religious beliefs. At the time, this was regarded as shocking, even scandalous. The survey was repeated in 1996, and showed no significant reduction in the proportion of scientists holding such beliefs, seriously challenging the popular notion of the relentless erosion of religious faith within the profession. The survey cuts the ground from under those who argued that the natural sciences are necessarily atheistic. Forty percent of those questioned had active religious beliefs, 40% had none (and can thus legitimately be regarded as atheist), and 20% were agnostic.


    The stereotype of the necessarily atheist scientist lingers on in western culture at the dawn of the third millennium. It has its uses, and continues to surface in the rehashed myths of the intellectual superiority of atheism over its rivals. The truth, as might be expected, is far more complex and considerably more interesting.


    The point of these reflections is obvious. Any worldview—atheist, Islamic, Jewish, Christian or whatever—ultimately depends on assumptions that cannot be proved. Every house is built on foundations, and the foundations of worldviews are not ultimately capable of being proved in every respect. Everyone who believes anything significant or worthwhile about the meaning of life does so as a matter of faith. We’re all in the same boat. And once you realize this, doubt seems a very different matter. It’s not a specifically Christian problem—it’s a universal human problem. And that helps to set it in its proper perspective.
     
    #13     Aug 15, 2006
  4. stu

    stu

    © 2006 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. All Rights Reserved.

    Aapex.
    The text you posted above is copyright, you should really acknowledge that when you cut and paste that way

    It is nevertheless nothing more than another religious apologists skirting around the place - science can't prove everything so there must be a God.
    A pathetic and worthless argument. As science can't prove everything, there must be leprechauns. Brilliant.
     
    #14     Aug 15, 2006
  5. Aapex

    Aapex



    I can't prove that God exist.
    YOU can't prove that God does not exist.

    Science is limited in scope. If you are honest you will admit that.

    I believe that the evidence for God's existance is greater than the evidence against God's existance.

    It is pathetic to say that there is no God without being able to prove such an outlandish statement.

    Putting God on the level of leprechauns is like comparing apemen to aliens from outerspace. I see no evidence for either of their existance.
     
    #15     Aug 16, 2006
  6. god doesnt exist but zues does. prove me wrong.

    If “faith” is a prerequisite in a belief in order to see the truth of the belief, being if there were evidence there would be no need for “faith” in any particular belief.
    All supernatural beliefs require “faith” in its truth, being there is no evidence proving any particular belief.
    So it must be the “faith” itself that dictates what is true.
    Therefore every one of the worlds religions are true, being they all rely on the “faith” of the believer to see its truth. -Unknown
     
    #16     Aug 16, 2006
  7. Aapex

    Aapex

    Faith is only as good as the object of that faith.
    You sit at your computer and type responses because you believe that the message will be transmitted via the internet.
    We all use faith everyday. The only matter is the object of that faith.

    God does exist but cavemen do not. prove me wrong.
    :)
     
    #17     Aug 16, 2006
  8. stu

    stu

    Aapex you are all over the place. It's simple really. Because something isn't proven not to exist, does not therefore mean it must exist. Can you really not understand that? Because God is not scientifically proven not to exist , does not mean God exists.

    Of course I accept you cannot prove the existence of God and I am not wanting to prove the non-existence of God. Why should I?

    I have no difficulty in recognizing the limits of science, although I do see science making progress on stuff not yet understood, as it always has. I do not see religion doing anything similar.

    I do not agree you have anything worth calling evidence for God's existence.

    And once again I am not trying to prove there is no God. To do so would be like trying to prove there are no leprechauns. It is pointless trying to prove anything fanciful like God or Leprechauns don’t exist.

    Because you see no evidence for apemen, aliens from outerspace or leprechauns, does not mean they don't exist. By your own argument as you say, you cannot prove God exists, so just how could you prove leprechauns don't .
     
    #18     Aug 16, 2006
  9. that is exactly the point. every believer of every religion is positive the object of his faith the truth. since they all can not be true we must devise a way to separate the truth from faith.
    that is why you cant use testimonials(emotions)in scientific enquiry. you have to run double blind tests to eliminate emotion from the equation.
     
    #19     Aug 16, 2006
  10. since they all can not be true

    How is this known?

     
    #20     Aug 16, 2006