What contributes more - science or religion???

[Wannabe Yogi]

While Martin Luther King Jr. seems genuine, Gandhi and Mother Theresa are highly overrated.

How is Gandhi overrated ? Just to let you now there has been a campaign of Hindu Fundamentalists to spread false Ideas about Gandhi.
They have called him racist and many other things that are just not true.

 

[The Wizard]

Thus to credit religion with what religious people do that is not specifically in the name of that religion seems pointless.

Are you saying that if someone doesn't do something in "the name" of religion then the affects of religion and beliefs are completely departed from the situation or person's lifestyle- therefore not deserving any credit?

You are explaining what you value out of a situation. Religion is pointless to you even though it affects the persons lifestyle who did your porch. That was not even what the post was about. So, your proposed arguement injection was a strawman.

Whether you desire to not give credit to certain operations of someone's lifestyle is your choice. But, it still won't remove the effects of religion and beliefs of God out of anything- as a subtle and accumulative componant and contributer to it.

I give science and religion credit where it is due- it's not like I can erase the presence of it from anything- unless it came from an atheist living in a remote cave.

Your post is describing what "matters" to you and what you value out of a situation- your own perspective. Well, Im not here to argue with you about what you value in life, what you deem pointless and choose to leave out of the equation.

 

[waitasec]

Counting just the 20th century we have religion producing such persons as the Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr, and Mother Theresa, and those are three of the religious giants.

:clap

mahatma gandhi once said...

"i can see why a white man discriminates against an african. but why against us? we indians have the same values."

"ours is one continues struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the european who desire to degrade us tot he level of the raw kaffir (a derogatory word for african blacks) who's occupation is hunting and who's sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness"

not such a great thing for a great man to say about his fellow man, is it?

my answer to martin luther king jr is
the agnostic frederick douglas a champion for civil and women's rights
james forman a civil rights activist in the '60s who was executive secretary of the student non-violent coordinating committee.

now mother theresa what a piece of work she was...

i will piggyback on a statement hitchens said about mother theresa, he called her a fundamental religious terrorist. i thought that was a rather shocking assessment about a person who's life's work was based on helping the needy.
however when the knowledge, the realization, of what her stance on condoms/birth control were, i came to that same conclusion. it was her faith that told her the use of condoms was worse then perpetuating the problem, it was her faith that fed into the suffering. she couldn't see beyond herself, her selfishness. her faith was the stick in the wheel. reason and knowledge would support the use of birth control because those methods would have alleviated the suffering immeasurably, without doubt. as you can plainly see hitchens was right about mother theresa, she was not a humble servant rather she was a cold blooded tyrant creating a system that sustained misery which exalted her as the ultimate servant.
that is an obvious undeniable act of hypocrisy which was laid out for the world to see but to those that are blinded by faith.
no sir, faith is the enemy of progress because faith is a friend to degeneration.

 

[Vendetta]

what is immoral about being skeptical? are atheists more prone to murder or to steal because of their skepticism? i think not.
in fact it 's the opposite, religion gives the stamp of approval to do things that are immoral by infringing on the inalienable rights of others.
look at the stats in the bible belt...where there are more cases of STD's, divorce and obesity compared to secular societies like sweden



are you saying before the 10 commandments the jews had no moral fiber in their being? lets think about this for a second. animals are empathetic to their own species, they have to be to ensure survival. morality is a selfish act in order to survive because reason would say there is power in numbers.



how can religion enrich your life? isn't that making an unsubstantiated claim?
there is no way for you to gage if you are any happier or at peace than i am is there.



what do you think i mean by infringing on the inalienable rights of others?



we need to disassociate religion with morality

No offense but I just see a juevenile effort to bastardize religion. Before responding to me make sure you read my entire post instead of responding with emotion. When you criticize religion we need to be clear as to which religion (if any) you are criticizing. You mentioned the Bible and Jews so now I am under the impression you are specifying a particular religious insitution. But when you mention religion as in all religions you better have a dank good reason why other religions that instruct their members to be peaceful why they too, according to you, are insignificant.

When I am talking about religion enriching the lives of others I mean exactly that. Just as a college student is enriched with the wealth if knowledge his or her university or community college gives. If you believe religion is absurd fine, that is your opinion. But don't call my opinion absurd or unsubststiated if you are doing exactly the same thing. If religion to you is not positive fine but don't sit here and be in denial of the leaps and bounds people who draw their faith on a higher calling. Earlier I mentioned.my mother being told she had terminal cancer. The doctor came in and in a cold response said they couldn't do nothing for her, as the cancer spread to her brain. In those agonizing months before she died she drew her faithin God. There no scientist in the room to measure her faith nor were there any doctors there to give her words of hope and the skill to cope it was her family and her faith.

My mother thereon accepted death and continued to have faith in God and even if God may not exist, or no after life, that Bible and that church st least provided some temporary relief in the agnozing thought if impendig doom.

But let me guess I am sure you will reply with, as Mr. Know-it-all says "denial, denial, denial."

 

[jarofthoughts]

@jarofthoughts

Know-it-all is right.....it seems when presented with examples you have this denial and it runs consistent. Basically when someone has an opposing view you come back with more opposition not necessarily addressing the comment.

I did indeed address the comment.
I told him about the shortcomings of it and offered counterexamples.

If you feel that I have not addressed some point that you have made, please direct my attention to it and I will remedy the matter.

 

[jarofthoughts]

How is Gandhi overrated ? Just to let you now there has been a campaign of Hindu Fundamentalists to spread false Ideas about Gandhi.
They have called him racist and many other things that are just not true.

He was indeed a racist, as is professed by his own speeches and comments.
To the 'Indian Opinion' he is known to have said about black South-Africans: "Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilised—the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals" and also "We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do... We believe also that the white race in South Africa should be the predominating race".

How is that not racist?

Also we have the fact that his role in bringing independence to India has been highly inflated.

I'm not saying he didn't contribute and that he had a lot of smart things to say as well. I'm just saying that he might not be deserving of his title (Mohatma).

 

[waitasec]

No offense but I just see a juevenile effort to bastardize religion. Before responding to me make sure you read my entire post instead of responding with emotion. When you criticize religion we need to be clear as to which religion (if any) you are criticizing. You mentioned the Bible and Jews so now I am under the impression you are specifying a particular religious insitution. But when you mention religion as in all religions you better have a dank good reason why other religions that instruct their members to be peaceful why they too, according to you, are insignificant.

why are you insulting my ability to have a debate? how did i show any sense of emotion? i never insulted your intelligence captain. this hostility only shows you to be insecure. if you want to continue a civil debate i suggest you stop being so emotional.

When I am talking about religion enriching the lives of others I mean exactly that. Just as a college student is enriched with the wealth if knowledge his or her university or community college gives. If you believe religion is absurd fine, that is your opinion. But don't call my opinion absurd or unsubststiated if you are doing exactly the same thing. If religion to you is not positive fine but don't sit here and be in denial of the leaps and bounds people who draw their faith on a higher calling. Earlier I mentioned.my mother being told she had terminal cancer. The doctor came in and in a cold response said they couldn't do nothing for her, as the cancer spread to her brain. In those agonizing months before she died she drew her faithin God. There no scientist in the room to measure her faith nor were there any doctors there to give her words of hope and the skill to cope it was her family and her faith.

why are you defending religion as if you were defending yourself?

My mother thereon accepted death and continued to have faith in God and even if God may not exist, or no after life, that Bible and that church st least provided some temporary relief in the agnozing thought if impendig doom.

But let me guess I am sure you will reply with, as Mr. Know-it-all says "denial, denial, denial."

who's being emotional here with the personal attacks.
i am offending the ideal of religion NOT YOU, if you can't handle it why are you here on a debating forum?
:areyoucra

 

[Vendetta]

Now jar that I didn't know thanks for sharing that about Ghandi

 

[jarofthoughts]

Are you saying that if someone doesn't do something in "the name" of religion then the affects of religion and beliefs are completely departed from the situation or person's lifestyle- therefore not deserving any credit?

I'm saying that a good carpenter would be a good carpenter whether he believed in a god or not. Why should I give credit to religion for him being a good carpenter just because he happens to be religious?

You are explaining what you value out of a situation. Religion is pointless to you even though it affects the persons lifestyle who did your porch. That was not even what the post was about. So, your proposed arguement injection was a strawman.

If I misunderstood your point then I apologize, but then I think you need to explain it better.

Whether you desire to not give credit to certain operations of someone's lifestyle is your choice. But, it still won't remove the effects of religion and beliefs of God out of anything- as a subtle and accumulative componant and contributer to it.

Again, a good carpenter is a good carpenter whether he believes in god or not. Those things are not connected. Why should I give credit to his belief in god?

 

[jarofthoughts]

But let me guess I am sure you will reply with, as Mr. Know-it-all says "denial, denial, denial."

If refuting or criticising claims that people make is "denial", then the only other option is blind acceptance.

Is that what you want?

Cause...you ain't getting it.

 

[Vendetta]

why are you insulting my ability to have a debate? how did i show any sense of emotion? i never insulted your intelligence captain. this hostility only shows you to be insecure. if you want to continue a civil debate i suggest you stop being so emotional.



why are you defending religion as if you were defending yourself?



who's being emotional here with the personal attacks.
i am offending the ideal of religion NOT YOU, if you can't handle it why are you here on a debating forum?
:areyoucra

Well forgive me I came here with the intent to exchange ideas not try to show.some sort of superiority through clever language. When responding to me you kept answering me with a question e.g. "How is religion good when it instructs people to kill?" Without specifying if you are implying all religions or you mean the Judeo-Christian faith.

The example of me bringing up my mother was not personal but a clear example as to how faith helps people cope. Your premise is to question the benefit of religions. I just gave you one.

You asked why I am defending religion as if I am defending myself? I am not defendig religion, I am presenting alternative views. If you want to debate, fine, but I have no interest with my views being called unsubstatiated when you present nothing but things that occur associated with Judeo-Christian religion. If you concede that all religions are bad give other examples besides just naming popular religions. All religions don't live under the.umbrella of each other. I apologize if I sound emotional, I was more annoyed than upset.

 

[The Wizard]

wow...
this thread is about what has contributed to society as a whole...
science or religion. and you seem to think that this thread is it's contribution because we are having a discussion about what contributes more...science or religion...well if you hadn't noticed science is apart of the equation too...
so what has religion contributed in society as a whole?
i'll help you out since you're having trouble with this simple question

religion has contributed
1. division
2. arrogance
3. the ideal of making uninformed decisions as a virtue
4. the ideal of skepticism is approached as a vice
5. celestial dictatorship
6. a higher calling
7. justified immoral actions upon fellow human beings
8. maintain traditional order from bronze age ideals
9. an undue sense of importance
10. knowledge of the unknowable

science has contributed
1. unity
2. truth/discovery of evidence
3. informed decisions
4. skepticism
5. equality by leveling the playing field
6. integrity
7. psychology
8. change
9. humility
10. knowledge of how little we know

All I did was give an example of religion having it's affects and contributions right here on this site and regarding the conversation. Many people spend large portions of their time and life orbitting around other people's religions and the affects of it, but insisting it doesn't affect or contribute towards anything in their life.

I'm am not having any trouble with your question because that wasn't the question asked on the thread title or in your posts to me. This is a more precise question. But, it looks like it is a religion bashing comparison list (except for 3,6,and 10). But, cudos for the effort. It is completely skewed to one side in favor of science. Religion was also involved with what's in the science catogory (1,2,3,8,9 and 10). Both sides will contribute good and bad and towards many things, depending on the area of life and situation.

There is no escape...

 

[Vendetta]

So far haven't seen any refutation at least with respect to the statements I posed

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

mahatma gandhi once said...

"i can see why a white man discriminates against an african. but why against us? we indians have the same values."

"ours is one continues struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the european who desire to degrade us tot he level of the raw kaffir (a derogatory word for african blacks) who's occupation is hunting and who's sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness"

Your views of Gandhi are false for the following reasons.

-First thing both Nelson Mandella and Desmoned Tutu have both written papers refuting these Ideas of yours. There has been a protacted war of Hindu Fundamentists on Gandhi. Please give your source from his writings not those of others. I have even read that Gandhi help in the murder of black people on the Internet. Most of this stuff is just false.

-Gandhi was born in 1869, and was killed 1948, at the age of 78. All of the quotes presented by people saying he is racist come from a period of time from 1894 and 1908. When Gandhi was between 25 and 39 years old, most coming from the earlier years of that time period. These quotes are all based on snippets, and always presented without any historical context. An even-handed examination will dispel the hateful engineered argument that Gandhi was in fact a racist, and certainly he was not in the later years of his life when he developed and exercised the lasting personal philosophy from which is his true legacy.

 

[jarofthoughts]

So far haven't seen any refutation at least with respect to the statements I posed

And where have you seen denial as presented by Knowitall?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

He was indeed a racist, as is professed by his own speeches and comments.
To the 'Indian Opinion' he is known to have said about black South-Africans: "Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilised—the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals" and also "We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do... We believe also that the white race in South Africa should be the predominating race".

How is that not racist?

Also we have the fact that his role in bringing independence to India has been highly inflated.

I'm not saying he didn't contribute and that he had a lot of smart things to say as well. I'm just saying that he might not be deserving of his title (Mohatma).

Once more many lies are told about Gandhi.

This is what NELSON MANDELA said about Gandhi.

His awakening came on the hilly terrain of the so-called Bambata Rebellion, where as a passionate British patriot, he led his Indian stretcher-bearer corps to serve the Empire, but British brutality against the Zulus roused his soul against violence as nothing had done before. He determined, on that battlefield, to wrest himself of all material attachments and devote himself completely and totally to eliminating violence and serving humanity. The sight of wounded and whipped Zulus, mercilessly abandoned by their British persecutors, so appalled him that he turned full circle from his admiration for all things British to celebrating the indigenous and ethnic. He resuscitated the culture of the colonized and the fullness of Indian resistance against the British; he revived Indian handicrafts and made these into an economic weapon against the colonizer in his call for swadeshi--the use of one's own and the boycott of the oppressor's products, which deprive the people of their skills and their capital.
A great measure of world poverty today and African poverty in particular is due to the continuing dependence on foreign markets for manufactured goods, which undermines domestic production and dams up domestic skills, apart from piling up unmanageable foreign debts. Gandhi's insistence on self-sufficiency is a basic economic principle that, if followed today, could contribute significantly to alleviating Third World poverty and stimulating development.
Gandhi predated Frantz Fanon and the black-consciousness movements in South Africa and the U.S. by more than a half-century and inspired the resurgence of the indigenous intellect, spirit and industry


Does not sound racist to me. If you can believe NELSON MANDELA when it comes to South African history (and I do)it was the poor treatment of blacks that turned Gandhi into the Mahatma.

Please read http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993025-1,00.html

 

[waitasec]

I'm am not having any trouble with your question because that wasn't the question asked on the thread title or in your posts to me. This is a more precise question.

nice back pedaling...
this is the original question that pertains to this thread...
if you don't like it...tough.

Decided to start a new thread after reading some comments on a previous thread I started.

What do you consider contributes more to a society, science or religion?

But, it looks like it is a religion bashing comparison list (except for 3,6,and 10). But, cudos for the effort. It is completely skewed to one side in favor of science.

the ideal of making uninformed decisions as a virtue goes well with your principles then...not for me.
a higher calling...and you don't think that comes off as a bit arrogant?
knowing the unknowable seems a bit too dangerous for anyone to claim it's just under the guise of religion, the cancer of society.

Religion was also involved with what's in the science catogory (1,2,3,8,9 and 10). Both sides will contribute good and bad and towards many things, depending on the area of life and situation.

There is no escape...

unity, truth, informed decisions, change, humility and the knowledge of how little we know goes against religious values.
it thrives on the division of people (why are there so many religions in the world and what is the #1 excuse for war?), truth is relative, faith is not making an informed decision, the mere idea of a god (not to mention a personal saviour) is knowing the unknowable and makes it possible for people to justify the horrific act of flying into buildings...

show me something new....

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

@ jarofthoughts and waitasec I hope I have opened your mind on the subject of Gandhi.

A good place to start would be to admit you judged him to soon.

 

[waitasec]

Your views of Gandhi are false for the following reasons.

-First thing both Nelson Mandella and Desmoned Tutu have both written papers refuting these Ideas of yours. There has been a protacted war of Hindu Fundamentists on Gandhi. Please give your source from his writings not those of others. I have even read that Gandhi help in the murder of black people on the Internet. Most of this stuff is just false.

-Gandhi was born in 1869, and was killed 1948, at the age of 78. All of the quotes presented by people saying he is racist come from a period of time from 1894 and 1908. When Gandhi was between 25 and 39 years old, most coming from the earlier years of that time period. These quotes are all based on snippets, and always presented without any historical context. An even-handed examination will dispel the hateful engineered argument that Gandhi was in fact a racist, and certainly he was not in the later years of his life when he developed and exercised the lasting personal philosophy from which is his true legacy.

gandhi believed in the caste system. am i wrong in that assessment?
hey i was even taken for a loop when christopher hitchens claimed mother theresa was a tyrannical religious fundamentalist...but when you look at the fact she perpetuated misery in the name of faith i had no choice but to concede to this logical conclusion.

 

[waitasec]

Well forgive me I came here with the intent to exchange ideas not try to show.some sort of superiority through clever language. When responding to me you kept answering me with a question e.g. "How is religion good when it instructs people to kill?" Without specifying if you are implying all religions or you mean the Judeo-Christian faith.

religion period.

The example of me bringing up my mother was not personal but a clear example as to how faith helps people cope. Your premise is to question the benefit of religions. I just gave you one.

so why can we both cope with and without the help of religion?

You asked why I am defending religion as if I am defending myself? I am not defendig religion, I am presenting alternative views. If you want to debate, fine, but I have no interest with my views being called unsubstatiated when you present nothing but things that occur associated with Judeo-Christian religion. If you concede that all religions are bad give other examples besides just naming popular religions. All religions don't live under the.umbrella of each other. I apologize if I sound emotional, I was more annoyed than upset.

i'm not going to point to 1 religion....religion is cancerous as far as i am concerned because it has only contributed cancerous symptoms in society. history speaks volumes in support of this claim.

if religion is so great, why hasn't it enabled the believer to do certain things an unbeliever can't? a believer cannot be any more happier than i, or at peace or fulfilled because of their religious belief. if that were the case then there wouldn't skepticism about it... show me something new and special about religion and i can show you the same about humanity...