What contributes more - science or religion???

[jarofthoughts]

Well I come from a religious background and although I am agnostic and areligious I see nothing affecting my thought on science. Let us look at some history. Ancient Egyptians excelled in mathematics physics and biology in their time and the inhabitants lived in a religious society. It is even safe to say those within the dynasties who we believe to be the pioneers of science, were religious themselves. Fast forward what of Plato (or I believe Aristotle) who studied biology and.embryology yet, he was a theist who believed the world was created by the demiurge? The Greco-Roman society was filled with polytheistix and pantheistic dogma yet still science flourished. Moving forward what about the Islamic empire which revived Aristotilean Philosophy and science. Heck, we owe it to the Arabs for Algebra and other medical science contributions. Negative effect on science? Me thinks you might of flunked that part in history sir.

Nothing of this changes the examples I gave you.

Could you please address the points I actually made instead?

 

[McBell]

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

I am going to have to go with religion.
I mean, if the claims of so many religious people are correct, without religion there would be nothing but killing, raping, plundering, robbing, etc.
Thank god that so many people fear punishment from god.

 

[Vendetta]

Ok jar if you want me to dissect nyour.thoughts to prove.you wrong...sure.id rather not use.my patio for nonsense.and rather use my phone to type but ok list your points down and I will address exactly what u are saying

 

[ninerbuff]

Well religion to you may remain stationary but what about the change in the lives of people? Increase in membership? Sure but one cannot doubt the psychological change in the many lives of people. Technological science is changing a faster rate and yes we do see the benefits. But without turning this into technological ethics discussion we also see the side effects upon which technological dependent society has created. I've seen physiological in HIV patients when they've adopted a religious and/or spiritual belief.

It can make people be at "more peace" with themselves, but then again, the disagreements amongst religions are also the disruptions of peace.
Look at the Israeli's and Palestinians. Though I fully believe their whole fight is over land occupation (which is what most countries fights are about), both sides institute a hatred for one another based on religion.

 

[Vendetta]

It can make people be at "more peace" with themselves, but then again, the disagreements amongst religions are also the disruptions of peace.
Look at the Israeli's and Palestinians. Though I fully believe their whole fight is over land occupation (which is what most countries fights are about), both sides institute a hatred for one another based on religion.

Do you even know why they're fighting? Imagine 13 countries (or more) deciding.to displace you after living in your home years

 

[Vendetta]

Nothing of this changes the examples I gave you.

Could you please address the points I actually made instead?

Still waiting on what you specifically want me to address.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Ok jar if you want me to dissect nyour.thoughts to prove.you wrong...sure.id rather not use.my patio for nonsense.and rather use my phone to type but ok list your points down and I will address exactly what u are saying

Still waiting on what you specifically want me to address.

Things I have claimed:

- Seeing as the followers of the Abrahamic religions are in a vast majority it seems appropriate to use them as the main example when discussing such a wide concept as “what has contributed more, science or religion”. They are by far the most influential in the world, for better or for worse.

- When religious people make religious arguments in relation to science, education and society in general they are usually doing so based in religious ideals, that is, ideals that come from religion.

- Religion is sometimes forced on people. You claimed that religion is NEVER forced on people. By showing that this is, indeed, something that sometimes happen, I have proven you wrong.

- Some religious groups are, with basis in their religion, opposed to science, most often the Theory of Evolution, but also other areas, such as Stem Cell Reseach.

- Religion and religious views have had a negative impact on science for example in the form of the trials against Coppernicus and Gallileo, the Creationist movement and the Anti Stem Cell research movement.

- A number of Muslim scholars interpret the Sharia laws to mean that Apostasy should be punishable by death.



Things I have NOT claimed:

- All religions are like the Abrahamic religions.

- Religion has no value.

- Religion is always forced on people.

- Religious views are the only ideas forced on people.

- All religious groups are opposed to science.

- Religion has ONLY had a negative impact on science.

- All Muslims everywhere interpret the Sharia laws to mean that Apostasy should be punishable by death.



Clear enough?

 

[McBell]

Clear enough?

Probably not, but we can always hope....

 

[Vendetta]

Things I have claimed:

- Seeing as the followers of the Abrahamic religions are in a vast majority it seems appropriate to use them as the main example when discussing such a wide concept as “what has contributed more, science or religion”. They are by far the most influential in the world, for better or for worse.

- When religious people make religious arguments in relation to science, education and society in general they are usually doing so based in religious ideals, that is, ideals that come from religion.

- Religion is sometimes forced on people. You claimed that religion is NEVER forced on people. By showing that this is, indeed, something that sometimes happen, I have proven you wrong.

- Some religious groups are, with basis in their religion, opposed to science, most often the Theory of Evolution, but also other areas, such as Stem Cell Reseach.

- Religion and religious views have had a negative impact on science for example in the form of the trials against Coppernicus and Gallileo, the Creationist movement and the Anti Stem Cell research movement.

- A number of Muslim scholars interpret the Sharia laws to mean that Apostasy should be punishable by death.



Things I have NOT claimed:

- All religions are like the Abrahamic religions.

- Religion has no value.

- Religion is always forced on people.

- Religious views are the only ideas forced on people.

- All religious groups are opposed to science.

- Religion has ONLY had a negative impact on science.

- All Muslims everywhere interpret the Sharia laws to mean that Apostasy should be punishable by death.



Clear enough?

I'm still confused lol just kidding......well ok that makes it more understandable

 

[jarofthoughts]

I'm still confused lol just kidding......well ok that makes it more understandable

And do you then concede that you were in the wrong?

 

[Vendetta]

And do you then concede that you were in the wrong?

Dude WTF? You must have a kobe bryant ego. Its called misunderstanding. Doesn't mean I was wrong. I don't concede anything.

Doesn't change the fact that I personally believe parents have every right to "brain wash" their children for the right and wrong reason or that Shari'ah Law punishment is not unanimously agreed upon.

 

[ninerbuff]

Do you even know why they're fighting? Imagine 13 countries (or more) deciding.to displace you after living in your home years

Like I said, the fight is over land occupation. But the claim of both sides is that their god deemed the land belongs to them.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Dude WTF? You must have a kobe bryant ego. Its called misunderstanding. Doesn't mean I was wrong. I don't concede anything.

So you concede that you misunderstood then.

Doesn't change the fact that I personally believe parents have every right to "brain wash" their children for the right and wrong reason...

So you are fine with Neo-Nazi parents teaching their kids to be violent racists if they so please? :sarcastic

...or that Shari'ah Law punishment is not unanimously agreed upon.

No-one ever claimed it was.

 

[Vendetta]

Like I said, the fight is over land occupation. But the claim of both sides is that their god deemed the land belongs to them.

I don't know if Palestinian Muslims believe that Allah awarded them that area then again I am speculating..

 

[Vendetta]

So you are fine with Neo-Nazi parents teaching their kids to be violent racists if they so please? :sarcastic

Sure I am. Freedom of speech also protects parents even when they're teaching their children hate. Parents shouldnt teach their children hate but doesn't mean they don't have a right to nor should they be restricted to teach their children hate.

 

[ninerbuff]

I don't know if Palestinian Muslims believe that Allah awarded them that area then again I am speculating..

The Palestinians lived there, along with Jews, and did outnumber them by hundreds of thousands. The land really didn't belong to anyone. Lol, then Britain steps in and screws everything up.

 

[ninerbuff]

Sure I am. Freedom of speech also protects parents even when they're teaching their children hate. Parents shouldnt teach their children hate but doesn't mean they don't have a right to nor should they be restricted to teach their children hate.

Like you I would never take away Freedom of Speech. However, I can see how people would revolt or attack others who are spewing hateful remarks intentionally.

 

[Vendetta]

Like you I would never take away Freedom of Speech. However, I can see how people would revolt or attack others who are spewing hateful remarks intentionally.

Don't get me wrong, if I see a Klan member yelling racial slithers towards me or my friend, yes I would be ready to fight however they have every right. I think when free speech turns to threats is when you find problems

 

[Vendetta]

The Palestinians lived there, along with Jews, and did outnumber them by hundreds of thousands. The land really didn't belong to anyone. Lol, then Britain steps in and screws everything up.

Yeah you're right! Thanks for mentioning the brits I forgot

 

[waitasec]

Sure I am. Freedom of speech also protects parents even when they're teaching their children hate. Parents shouldnt teach their children hate but doesn't mean they don't have a right to nor should they be restricted to teach their children hate.

i agree.
people are free to be stupid...