Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?

[allfoak]

I find this concept intriguing. Why wouldn't the laws just exist on their own? Matter interacts with other matter in a certain way. When large enough bodies come close enough to each other, gravitational forces come into play. That's just what happens with large material bodies like planets. Why would God be necessary to make up gravity?

Science and religion are used to control the population not to educate or enlighten.

 

[leibowde84]

Science and religion are used to control the population not to educate or enlighten.

How is the scientific method used to "control the population"? How could merely using the Scientific Method (defined below) be used in this way? Can you specify what you are referring to?

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun

1. a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

 

[outhouse]

Science and religion are used to control the population not to educate or enlighten.

Apologetic rhetoric with no credibility.

Its very hypocritical, to use science daily, then bad mouth it the next.

 

[leibowde84]

a stance of ignorance is not a winning stance.
call yourself ignorant if you must....
claim you don't know...if you don't...

that doesn't mean I have to concede my assuredness.
I believe in cause and effect.
I believe substance does not beget life.

God.

And, by the way, why does "winning" matter? Our ignorance in these matters is the truth. What else matters?

 

[allfoak]

How is the scientific method used to "control the population"? How could merely using the Scientific Method (defined below) be used in this way? Can you specify what you are referring to?

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun

1. a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Not the method, the institution.
The method is sound.
The people who control the information are not so sound.

 

[Thief]

And, by the way, why does "winning" matter? Our ignorance in these matters is the truth. What else matters?

if you are content with your ignorance.....fine.

I am sure there is God.

 

[Sunstone]

Utility is an interesting area to divert into, though. One argument against ISIS is that it's not truly Islamic, but is (basically) a political grab for power. But, in their own mind at least, usage of religion has utility.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the meaning of utility though?

I was thinking of utility in the sense of motivational to the person who believed (say, on the basis of faith) the claim, but I suppose you could also argue that the utility of the claim depends on how and to what extent it facilitates one's spirituality. In the first case, your criticism would be quite valid, I think. Not so much in the second case, perhaps.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That skeleton is from the Roman catacombs and is actually in a Catholic parish in Switzerland. It's supposed to be St. Pancratius.

And, no - I'm not really a Catholic, but I am a Christian of sorts, among other things. Why does it matter what I identify as?

It doesn't. But then again... why display in the culmination of your avatar as "Gnostic Luciferianism"? Does that "not matter" also?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It doesn't. But then again... why display in the culmination of your avatar as "Gnostic Luciferianism"? Does that "not matter" also?

Christ was one Messenger of Light (or Aeon) that Gnostics may follow to attain liberation. There's many that a Gnostic could choose from, depending on their personal preferences and calling. The Christ concept and the Lucifer concept are the same thing, anyway. Christ referred to Himself as the "bright Morning Star", as well.

There are great teachings to found in the writings about the Gnostic Christ, but He's just one of my interests.

 

[leibowde84]

Not the method, the institution.
The method is sound.
The people who control the information are not so sound.

Science the institution? What do you mean by that? Why would this "institution" be dishonest, and what do you think they have been dishonest about specifically?

 

[leibowde84]

if you are content with your ignorance.....fine.

I am sure there is God.

What does being "content" have to do with anything? I am just explaining that currently we ARE both ignorant as to what caused the Big Bang. I am not "content" with it, and I constantly research cosmological studies to try to learn as much as I can. But, I am not willing to claim "surety" about something that no one can be sure of currently. That is merely jumping to a conclusion.

 

[allfoak]

Science the institution? What do you mean by that? Why would this "institution" be dishonest, and what do you think they have been dishonest about specifically?

Science is an institution because it educates the public.
That is part of what an institution does.
Religion is an institution as well because it does the same.

The average person trusts that these institutions educate us in an honest and accurate manner.
Since this is true, the people will for the most part believe the teachings that come from these institutions as if they are the complete and unbiased truth.

I would ask anyone who thinks that these institutions are telling us the truth, why is it that the world is such a mess?
If we are being taught the truth about who we are and why we are here, then why is everyone so confused about the truth?

Look at this message board, there are thousands like it on the internet, everyone searching for something.
What are they all looking for if we have already been taught the truth?

Everything is a mess because we are being told lies.
We have been told that education is the most valuable thing we can acquire in life.
Is it?
What is it doing for us?

The truth does not come from an institution, it comes from within each and every one of us.
Religion has taken this out of their books and science teaches the complete opposite.
They have stripped us of our humanity by keeping this a secret.

Each and every one of us has an eternal soul.
Our soul knows more than any of man's institutions of learning.
This knowledge and how to access our soul has been kept from us and the results are clear.
The world is imploding.
It is as if everyone has some sort of virus of the mind.
The average persons thinking is so far from the truth it is astounding sometimes.

 

[leibowde84]

Science is an institution because it educates the public.
That is part of what an institution does.
Religion is an institution as well because it does the same.

What troubles me about this claim is that science and religion are both not singular entities. With religion, it is obvious that there is no agreed upon motivation. Different religions have very different views/beliefs, and even members of the same religion have very different opinions as to what they belief and how they should act. Science is exactly the same situation. The job of scientists is to constantly challenge other scientists and their theories in the attempt of changing the way we understand the cosmos. Thus, "science" doesn't teach anything, as it is just a method. Scientists often do, but those are individuals. There is no unchanging authority in science apart from verifiable evidence. So, I fail to see how you can claim that "science" is an institution that "teaches" anything. It is, instead, the method by which we gain understanding of the physical world. And, unlike religion, it is everchanging and based on objectivity rather than subjective experience which has been proven time and time again to be unreliable.

 

[Willamena]

Came across the following that I think apply to discussions around here more often than they should

“…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
-Stephen F. Roberts

“You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.”
(Paraphrased from Jonathan Swift- “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into”)

“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”
– Bertrand Russell

"The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.”
-Pierre-Simon Marquis de Laplace
​

One of these things is not like the others.

 

[allfoak]

Thus, "science" doesn't teach anything, as it is just a method.

Most know nothing of the scientific method, what they know is what they are taught.
While I can understand what you are saying, it is not the reality.
We are taught what is learned by others.
We do not verify these claims ourselves, so science the institution becomes our teacher, not the scientific method.
This leaves the information in the hands of the few to decide what should be taught as fact.

 

[paarsurrey]

Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?

Reason always needs a conjugal partner otherwise of itself it is simply blind . Please
Like eyes need light to see, and the proper focus.
Regards

 

[outhouse]

While I can understand what you are saying, it is not the reality.

Actually it is as close to reality as we can get.

Most know nothing of the scientific method,

You mean you?

This leaves the information in the hands of the few to decide what should be taught as fact.

No one can fight academic knowledge with any credibility.

Refusing it is not a credible option.

 

[paarsurrey]

Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?

Regarding Academia, one may like to visit/revisit Post #1, please
Regards

 

[outhouse]

Regarding Academia

We know where post #1 is but thanks.

The real question is why you refuse it so often

 

[Thief]

What does being "content" have to do with anything? I am just explaining that currently we ARE both ignorant as to what caused the Big Bang. I am not "content" with it, and I constantly research cosmological studies to try to learn as much as I can. But, I am not willing to claim "surety" about something that no one can be sure of currently. That is merely jumping to a conclusion.

it's a small leap of faith (and faith requires no proving)....
go back to the singularity and consider cause and effect.

it's not that difficult....

substance is not self starting.
substance does not beget life.
there IS Someone there.