Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 187
  1. #61  
    I thought basketball was the only religion practiced in Indiana anyways...
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    The difference between science and religion, in this context, is that science looks for the answer that best fits the observed facts. When new evidence comes in, science revises its theories to fit the new facts. Religion, on the other hand, simply denies any evidence (new or old) that contradicts a pre-determined belief structure.
    I don't know that I can agree with this statement. Even in science, many of the advances take place after a scientist is hammered by the scientific community for arriving at ridiculous conclusions. That is, until the theory is proved right, at which time the scientific community accepts it as fact. Many, many times in history the scientific community has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into progress.

    Religion, like many other facets of life, tend to be laggards - just as the scientific community but in a more pronounced manner.
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    Some simplistic folks need the mantle of religion (they must be afraid of hot places and creatures in red suits with horns and tails) to behave. If they are able to think for themselves, then there would be no need for a "faith based" adherence to old texts. They can be good and "lawful" without religion.
    Man, this is so wrong on so many different levels. Religion is not just crutch to be used by "simplistic folks" who are unable to "think for themselves". Look throughout history and you can see this - many, many, many of the brightest and best have had religious convictions.

    I must say, this is probably the broadest most intollerent statement I believe I've ever read. Can I assume it was not well thought out but rather an emotional knee-jerk reaction - or am I reading more into the statement than exists?
  4. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    I don't know that I can agree with this statement. Even in science, many of the advances take place after a scientist is hammered by the scientific community for arriving at ridiculous conclusions. That is, until the theory is proved right, at which time the scientific community accepts it as fact. Many, many times in history the scientific community has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into progress.

    Religion, like many other facets of life, tend to be laggards - just as the scientific community but in a more pronounced manner.
    Not to nitpick but when was the last time the church has admitted they were wrong and then changed their stance because of new information?
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Not to nitpick...
    to pick nits is healthy...

    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    Ekuzco is perfectly free to practice whatever vile, discriminatory, bigoted religion he feels like. I have no problem with him believing whatever he wants.....
    Be careful sweetie, or you may paint yourself as the bigot with comments like that Bigotry is not "intolerance," but "unreasonable intolerance". You dont agree with each other, Dude...that doesnt make him a bigot.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    I thought basketball was the only religion practiced in Indiana anyways...
    Good Movie

    Well behaved women rarely make history
  8. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Man, this is so wrong on so many different levels. Religion is not just crutch to be used by "simplistic folks" who are unable to "think for themselves". Look throughout history and you can see this - many, many, many of the brightest and best have had religious convictions.

    I must say, this is probably the broadest most intollerent statement I believe I've ever read. Can I assume it was not well thought out but rather an emotional knee-jerk reaction - or am I reading more into the statement than exists?
    I think you might be turning it into a broad statement.
    Let's dissect:
    "Some simplistic folks need the mantle of religion (they must be afraid of hot places and creatures in red suits with horns and tails) to behave."
    The bold represent the key words here. Let's put it this way "Some folks need religion to behave." Does that sound better?


    "If they are able to think for themselves, then there would be no need for a "faith based" adherence to old texts."
    Again we need to refer to the first sentence to get the context of this.

    "They can be good and "lawful" without religion."
    I don't think you had a problem with this. But I like it so it is here
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Not to nitpick but when was the last time the church has admitted they were wrong and then changed their stance because of new information?
    Which church
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  10. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    to pick nits is healthy...

    WHOA, you can't post that smut here!! We cannot have posting your porn pictures on the forum.
  11. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Which church
    Pick one that relies on the bible.
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Not to nitpick but when was the last time the church has admitted they were wrong and then changed their stance because of new information?
    To be sure, Religion is slow to change. Seems more like, pardon the pun , it evolves rather than 'oops, we're wrong so lets change" kind of thing. Only one that comes to mind, though I expect there are others (just don't want to research...) is the changing of the idea that the universe revolves around the Earth. (And yes, that was a looonnnnngggg time ago).
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Pick one that relies on the bible.
    So you are talking about "many" churches, or rather Christianity??
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  14. #74  
    and I am staying clear of this......
  15. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    So you are talking about "many" churches, or rather Christianity??
    Quit dancing and answer.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    ...science looks for the answer that best fits the observed facts.
    Intriguing to go with a subjective standard given the means by which you are espousing a (false) dichotomy between science and religion.

    as treo2die4 pointed out, scientists are not immune to the practise of holding to that which has been, even in the face of new information or new takes on old information.

    Further, some scientists take the approach of looking for facts to uphold their conclusions. Or they look for ways for new facts to fit (even force-fit) their conclusions.

    Even further, scientists are not immune to fabricating information to bolster their position--including positions that are then long held as "fact" and as "evidentiary" even AFTER the disingenuous origin is discovered.

    Like NRG, though, my intent is not to nitpick. Rather I want to point out that this is the behavior of some scientists, just like similar behavior seen in some of the religious. Then I wish to assert that the practices by individuals need not impune the disciplines of science or religion. The two disciplines are not inherently opposed to one another. They can be rather complimentary. It is when one is compelled to choose one above the other that fanaticism rears its head. And, interestingly, when that false distinction is promoted, science takes on an aura that belies the distinction.
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Quite dancing and answer.
    I'd rather she dance...
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    It's all relative...science has been proven wrong too...the earth isn't flat and it revolves around the sun.

    The more we learn, the less we know.
    Therein lies the strength of science.. The ability to correct itself when confronted with irrefutable evidence.

    Compare that with "faith" and "belief".
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  19. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    I'd rather she dance...
    Damn you quoted before I caught my mistake. I.E. "quite" vs. "quit".
  20. #80  
    Post 1

    Just to address the original topic of this thread, I asked my cousin, who is Wiccan, what her definition of paganism is. She had this to say:

    I believe pagan is a word that mainstream religions apply to non-believers. If I look in the dictionary, I find that pagan means
    1. One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
    2. One who has no religion.
    3. A non-Christian.
    4. A hedonist.
    5. A Neo-Pagan.

    Essentially, the dictionary says that anyone (wiccan, agnostic, atheist, etc.) who does not follow the beliefs of the mainstream religions is pagan.

    Now, many wiccans call themselves pagan. I even call myself pagan on
    occasion when trying to explain my religion to someone from a mainstream faith. I use the word because those from mainstream faiths (I'll just say Christians from now on, because I mostly deal with Christians.) have an easier time understanding the word "pagan" than the word "wiccan." I'm not particularly fond of the word though. I try not to use it. As I said, I believe it to be a word applied to non-believers. Today's pagans use the word because they chose to reappropriate it. If they start calling themselves pagans, eventually it won't be such a bad word. Of course, it never entirely works. The people who use it as negative word, still believe it to have negative connotations. And the people who have never heard the word will learn its connotation from whomever utters it in their presence first. I know we can all think of other reappropriated words and we can all realize that reappropriation doesn't always work. (Except perhaps in the case of the word "*****," but I digress.)
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions