here on DA (and a few other places) I have seen or heard comments by people of a certain belief system, that say they have their beliefs because logic supports it. ok if those are your beliefs, ok. believe what you want. but when you start implying that to believe in God means that you are simply brainwashed by society to believe it or imply that I reject logic because my proof of God's existence doesn't suffice your beliefs, then you are a jackass!!! and I freaking swear, I am going to go off on the next person who makes such a comment!!! having faith does not make us weak. It does not mean we are brainwashed. It does not mean that we cannot think for ourselves. And it does not mean that we do not rationalize events that are out of the ordinary!!!
Anyone who makes such comments is arrogant, stupid, and I swear I am going to go off on the next person that says something like that!
You probably have moved on from this topic, but it felt worth adding to it.
How would you describe the situation, IceBlast360?
I see ultimately the topic points to the questions of this: Genes. Does mutation equals decay or does mutation equal new traits? Just as "more perfect" is a relative term, I would argue that an animal's genetics being modified for its survival to be considered an improvement and "given enough time" an eventual strive or competition for the greatest, or "more perfect", genetics. The argument of time can also be made relative and elevated to god like status.
I may be getting off topic though. Let us examine the original premise I mentioned earlier. What do you find irrational about the degrading of the human genome caused by replicating cells and inbreeding? Cellular replication degrades people everyday, these are the effects of aging and decay.
Of course, we both may not even know.... And honestly you just said something completely illogical, how are the things you believe closer to correct than what I believe in? that's just a heavily biased statement that was, in all honesty, random, I mean there hasn't even been a show of evidence or rational arguments and yet you are already impliedly claiming that your belief is "intellectualy superior" to mine, which in my opinion seems arrogant from this side, but I don't wanna judge you
Of course, I said that, same with "judging you", but that's because you said that your set of beliefs were more correct, and than those who hold a religious creed without even giving a reason, I'm backing my statements on what you just said, which has traits of such things.
For starters, the FIRST verse in the bible.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Right off the bat, this was not translated properly, for instance. "God" was changed from "gods." Originally, there was not one "God." Most other religions on earth have had multiple gods. Christianity did too.
Humans change religion as they please. That's why Christians today are nothing like they were hundreds of years ago, or even tens of years ago.
If the bible were true, and written by the word of gods/a God, why is it not CLEARLY written? Why is it full of symbols and metaphors? Why doesn't it say anywhere "If you get a cut and it becomes infected, you should clean it regularly and keep it wrapped?" Why is it simply full of useless information and threats that you go to hell if you don't believe AND believe in the RIGHT WAYS?
There is no medical advice, no instructions on building things to save lives, no instructions on how to create a great government that will make all happy, no NOTHING that is of any help to anyone.
Because it wasn't written by a god, it was written by humans with divine inspiration, why is it not clearly written? because of it's higher range of interpretation, like an allegory, to keep more information in less space, some laws are written that way AND treated as such too. Of course, it's harder to know when it's right or not but that seems to be the point, it also mentions things like "clean an cut before it becomes infected", but if I'm not wrong, many texts of ancient epochs use similar forms of narrative.
why does it threaten with things if it's not followed? because that is how pretty much every law works: by threatening with punishment if it's not followed, where is it different from "if you steal, you're going to jail"? There's not much "useless" information, modern morality has many of it's roots on it.
There's no advice because we're supposed to find our own way.
Making children pray before they can even read, making buildings that are only for the purpose of praying, telling them if you don't believe that bullshit, according to that bullshit you are blind, evil and you will suffer. Any argument they do is misleading and deeply ignorant about serious things. Someone wanked that galileo, newton and descarted were scientists and believers. Oh shit, seriously? (and notice that these are the first even an ignorant can have heard about in elementary school and movies for kids, LOL) There were many more, that doesn't impress me. Watch modern science and what scientists really think about religion. Science is advancing quickly, you can't rely on manuals of only few decades ago because they discover new things constantly.
What else? The brainwashing ways of the lord are infinite. People accept evolution. But still try to make it agree with religion. Why, what's the excuse now? People accept big bang. But since knowledge is totally limited in that field, they think it doesn't go against supernatural. Religion brings you to consider it cool to ignore science. People today don't know shit. Who is really informed? Only experts. People are sold on myths. Cos they wanna have their faith and don't doubt things. Which means, they don't wanna bother questioning.
Sounds enough like brainwashing to me.
And what if people accept both? they're not inherently opposites, so they can be examined and an interpretation of both can be achieved.
So you consider science a dogma, scientists angry sustainers of it as a religion, who go against religion that according to you, gives acceptable explanations of the reality as much as science does? You miss only one point: science proves what it affirms, and it's based on observation. You wanna point out like it's usual religious strategy, that scientific theories are not 100% proven? Fine, then become a scientific researcher and confute every science theory and math theorem. A scientist knows well that scientific theories are not all completely proven. But you seem to conclude from this that they are all wrong. A lot of them is actually quite certain. They can only be expanded. in the last century they discovered completely new things in all fields. But perhaps you don't realize that science discovering things that contradict previous conclusions is a joy for scientists, not a disappointment. Science and religion are inherently opposite. Everything of religion is enemy of science: faith without proof, mistrust of reason, mistrust of science and technology, don't do anything to influence nature, etc.
Science is a brainwashing? We use technology based on science in case you haven't noticed.
I'm saying that not all of it is right, in the last century they discovered things because the cold war was good enough to make them shut up about religions and work. Sure, a joy, so much that some of them go hostile against anyone who doubts their theories.
Science and Religion are NOT opposites in any shape or form, in fact, both can correlate and work towards a common end. Many things in religion are supportive of science when the latter can achieve the former's goals, it doesn't mistrust reason, as it sometimes even ecourages it; nor any of those things.
Just like modern ethics and cultures are based off religions, is as much brainwashing as math. Plus, most technology's actually very optimised objects based on either the cold war or older theories.