• 91 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by explodingpineapple (837 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: Each person has their beliefs, and I said that from the standpoint of being a Christian. So to me God is far more real, and for Christian comic characters someone like Thor can only do certain things so that could also not be a harm for their faith. But I hope you agreed with a lot of my points.

#52 Posted by Shawnbaby (10869 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: Each person has their beliefs, and I said that from the standpoint of being a Christian. So to me God is far more real, and for Christian comic characters someone like Thor can only do certain things so that could also not be a harm for their faith. But I hope you agreed with a lot of my points.

The point is though that People that believed in Thor would have concrete, physical proof that he exists. They don't have to take it on faith anymore.

There's a reason why in 2099 they have "Thorites".

#53 Edited by ChildoftheAtom (491 posts) - - Show Bio

Wow more religion in comics. This is areally good question but as a Christian I have more respect for guys that keep they're faith through all the craziness. Overall it is fiction. That seemed like a very interesting scan tho and very realistic to what people would think if the beyonder existed. It has no affect on the readers faith but the characters might wonder why God tests their faith so much with celestials and Asgard.

Maybe Gods the one keeping comic Earth full of heroes.

#54 Posted by explodingpineapple (837 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: But Thor still can't do everything for them, and as I said that came from a Christian stand point.

#55 Edited by ImTheDamnBatman (3548 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: (1) So if God presented himself to everyone all at once right now, we'd chalk that up to mass hallucination? How does that make any sense? EVERYONE on the planet witnesses him, and you say the most rational solution would be something akin to hallucination. Mhm. A man of science, you are.

(2) I far and away know more about the theory of the Big Bang than you. There is no substantial evidence to know what caused it or how it formed. Any hypothesis any scientist has ever created works off sheer speculation and ideas that are backed by no solid evidence. Nobody has any factual idea how the big bang formed. Same goes for Hilbert. They're all great ideas, but that's all they are, ideas. They have no solid evidence that backs them.

(3) Which brings me to my next point, which is that science relies of faith just as much as any religion does. Science claims to be based in complete fact, and it is when it comes to things that have been discovered. However, when we enter the realm of creation, scientists sound like any other devout religious party. "We don't have the answers, but we will! They're out there!" That is a claim made by both parties. Even in your previous post, you stated we don't have the current knowledge to figure how it works ("It" in this case representing anything beyond the Big Bang), but we will in the future. How do you know that? How do you know there is even an answer behind it all? Scientists don't even fully understand how our brain operates yet (ask your science teacher next time you're in class). Could it be faith? Do I need to slap you with a dictionary, because faith doesn't only pertain to religious parties.

That said, any and all denomanations, beliefs, or lack thereof should be respected. I hate no one over what they believe. In fact, it's pretty interesting to hear some of my more religious friends tell me about what they worship.

#56 Posted by Shawnbaby (10869 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: But Thor still can't do everything for them, and as I said that came from a Christian stand point.

God can't do everything for you either.

#57 Posted by Shawnbaby (10869 posts) - - Show Bio

@imthedamnbatman:

1) You're right...if God were to reveal himself clearly and concisely on a global scale...we'd have no choice but to believe he exists. But he hasn't. Ever. In 2000 years of recorded history.

2) There is quite a bit of supporting evidence for the Big Bang...just nothing that absolutely proves it.

3) Science works in evidence. Religion works on faith. Religion tells you that the Earth is only about 6000 years old. Carbon Dating will tell you that the Earth is closer to 4 billion years old. Religion tells you that God made Humans first. Science has proved that there have been numerous species that existed on Earth long before Humanity. Religion will tell you that God Stopped the Sun in the sky. Science has proven that the Earth Rotates the Sun...not the other way around.

Science flies us to the Moon. Religion flies us into buildings.

#58 Edited by Jake Fury (19187 posts) - - Show Bio

Loved this as a kid. Shame writers don't explore more avenues like this much anymore.

#59 Edited by explodingpineapple (837 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: What I mean is that they are not all powerful.

#60 Posted by Shawnbaby (10869 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: What I mean is that they are not all powerful.

But they are proven to actually exist...which directly contradicts the bible.

#61 Edited by ImTheDamnBatman (3548 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: Of course to all 3 points, with the exception of the half of the 3rd. Science, at times, works completely on faith.

Also to address your final comment;

Science blew up 70,000+ people in under 5 seconds. And that's only one instance. Neither side is without guilt.

#62 Posted by explodingpineapple (837 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: But maybe if they are not actually a god to them personally. But anyway, thanks for the conversation. Good day.

#63 Posted by jackbensley777 (685 posts) - - Show Bio

THEORETICALLY ALL MYTHOLOGICAL GODS IN THE MARVEL UNIVERSE ARE nonetheless but extra terrestrials. That alone though goes against the biblical belief of humans being whatever it says we are as to every other organic being.

#64 Posted by Experio (17135 posts) - - Show Bio

Comics can never have an affect on my religion and it can never give me doubts, and this is coming from a guy whose second favorite character is Thor.

#65 Posted by jackbensley777 (685 posts) - - Show Bio

@imthedamnbatman: you also have to question your own gods proof...Im a christian and i know thats hard to think of but the big bang theory is a scientific theory while their is no substantial evidence of an omnopented being. As a christian i have to believe anyways though

#66 Posted by ImTheDamnBatman (3548 posts) - - Show Bio

@jackbensley777: If you're a Christian, can't the Big Bang Theory and your beliefs coexist? Why wouldn't they be able to?

#67 Edited by Shawnbaby (10869 posts) - - Show Bio

@jackbensley777: If you're a Christian, can't the Big Bang Theory and your beliefs coexist? Why wouldn't they be able to?

It depends on how much stock you put into The Bible. Most of it flies directly in the face of Scientific Knowledge.

#68 Posted by McDerpyson (775 posts) - - Show Bio
#69 Edited by ImTheDamnBatman (3548 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: From what I've read a lot of it is ambiguous and drowned in metaphor.

#70 Posted by Shawnbaby (10869 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: Of course to all 3 points, with the exception of the half of the 3rd. Science, at times, works completely on faith.

Also to address your final comment;

Science blew up 70,000+ people in under 5 seconds. And that's only one instance. Neither side is without guilt.

Science and Faith are on completely opposite spectrums. Faith exists without logic or supporting evidence. Science requires both.

"Science" doesn't kill anyone. Never has. People decide to kill people. Often in the name of religion.

#71 Posted by ImTheDamnBatman (3548 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: False on both accounts.

(1) Faith has nothing to do with religion. Do you believe one day science will discover what caused the Big Bang? That's faith.

(2) Science created the nuclear bomb just as religion created the religious fanatic. If you're going to blame human nature for the nuclear bomb rather than science, you must then also blame human nature instead of religion.

#72 Posted by Shawnbaby (10869 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: False on both accounts.

(1) Faith has nothing to do with religion. Do you believe one day science will discover what caused the Big Bang? That's faith.

(2) Science created the nuclear bomb just as religion created the religious fanatic. If you're going to blame human nature for the nuclear bomb rather than science, you must then also blame human nature instead of religion.

1) Faith has everything to do with Religion.

Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

2) Without religion...there would be no "Religious Fanatics". Science has never declared Crusades. Science didn't burn innocent people at the stake for being "witches". Science has, overall, made the world a much better place than Religion ever has. Yes, The nuke killed 70,000+ people....but do you blame a gun or the person using the gun? Science doesn't turn people into suicide bombers. Religion does.

#73 Posted by ImTheDamnBatman (3548 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby:

(1) I suggest you pick up a dictionary, because that is not the definition of faith.

(2) You didn't address my statement, though. If human nature is to blame instead of science for such bombings and killings, how is religion to blame? That would again just be due to human nature. You don't blame the religion; you blame the man who decided to follow it.

#74 Posted by Shawnbaby (10869 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby:

(1) I suggest you pick up a dictionary, because that is not the definition of faith.

(2) You didn't address my statement, though. If human nature is to blame instead of science for such bombings and killings, how is religion to blame? That would again just be due to human nature. You don't blame the religion; you blame the man who decided to follow it.

1. Actually it is a definition of Faith...Directly from the Dictionary. It's not the only definition...but it's applicable. It doesn't necessarily have to do with God or Religion...but the very nature of it is that it works in absence of actual material evidence. Science doesn't work the same way at all...Science is about seeking evidence.

2. "Human Nature" is vague and overly general. It's also "Human Nature" to reach out and help a lost child. The point is Science has never taught someone to hate someone else because they have a different belief system. Religion has.

#75 Posted by ImTheDamnBatman (3548 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: (1) No it isn't. Pick up an actual dictionary and read the definition.

Faith; "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something", which is entirely applicable to science.

(2) If you're ready to blame human nature instead of science, you have to readily do the same for religion. You said "people kill people", not science. If that's the case, you can't blame religion as the cause for any deaths because it is the people that chose to believe and follow the religion in the first place. Can you even name me 3 religions that instruct believers to hate those that don't share the same beliefs?

#76 Posted by Shawnbaby (10869 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: (1) No it isn't. Pick up an actual dictionary and read the definition.

Faith; "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something", which is entirely applicable to science.

(2) If you're ready to blame human nature instead of science, you have to readily do the same for religion. You said "people kill people", not science. If that's the case, you can't blame religion as the cause for any deaths because it is the people that chose to believe and follow the religion in the first place. Can you even name me 3 religions that instruct believers to hate those that don't share the same beliefs?

Yes it is. Words have multiple definitions. And different dictionaries will also define them with different terminology. I can find you plenty of other defintions for Faith

Faith - strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

Faith - strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

Faith - strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof:

I can keep going.

#77 Edited by ImTheDamnBatman (3548 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: And this shows... What? All I said was science requires faith all the same.

#78 Posted by Shawnbaby (10869 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: And this shows... What? All I said was science requires faith all the same.

the difference being with Religion it starts and stops at Faith. Religious Faith means you don't ask questions. Scientific "Faith" means that you do. Scientists love asking questions.

#79 Posted by ImTheDamnBatman (3548 posts) - - Show Bio
#80 Posted by Lvenger (21143 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: (1) So if God presented himself to everyone all at once right now, we'd chalk that up to mass hallucination? How does that make any sense? EVERYONE on the planet witnesses him, and you say the most rational solution would be something akin to hallucination. Mhm. A man of science, you are.

Because in the entirety of human history, with the technology at our disposal and number of unreliable witnesses there are, you honestly think that witnessing God on a world wide scale would be reliable? Mhm, a man of science you are most definitely not on that basis.

(2) I far and away know more about the theory of the Big Bang than you. There is no substantial evidence to know what caused it or how it formed. Any hypothesis any scientist has ever created works off sheer speculation and ideas that are backed by no solid evidence. Nobody has any factual idea how the big bang formed. Same goes for Hilbert. They're all great ideas, but that's all they are, ideas. They have no solid evidence that backs them.

Really because if you were, you should know that the evidence scientists have at their disposals currently vastly outweighs thousands of years worth of superstition, credulous belief and forced propaganda in human history that Christianity and all religions have been since they first emerged. Of course no one has any factual idea of how the Big Bang formed because we cannot view what the world was like before the Big Bang. If you had any idea how the scientific theory methodology worked, you'd be aware that even Stephen Hawking's speculations are more reliable than any theologian chalking it up to an anthrpomorphised bearded man in the sky causing the Big Bang. The latter claim is based on fallacious logic and whilst you talk about solid evidence, that's exactly what your religion is based on. No solid evidence of Jesus being the Son of God or God existing in the slightest. And there never has been any concrete proof of that. That's a definite fact.

(3) Which brings me to my next point, which is that science relies of faith just as much as any religion does. Science claims to be based in complete fact, and it is when it comes to things that have been discovered. However, when we enter the realm of creation, scientists sound like any other devout religious party. "We don't have the answers, but we will! They're out there!" That is a claim made by both parties. Even in your previous post, you stated we don't have the current knowledge to figure how it works ("It" in this case representing anything beyond the Big Bang), but we will in the future. How do you know that? How do you know there is even an answer behind it all? Scientists don't even fully understand how our brain operates yet (ask your science teacher next time you're in class). Could it be faith? Do I need to slap you with a dictionary, because faith doesn't only pertain to religious parties.

That said, any and all denomanations, beliefs, or lack thereof should be respected. I hate no one over what they believe. In fact, it's pretty interesting to hear some of my more religious friends tell me about what they worship.

Ha, wrong on all counts. Science does not rely on faith, that comes from a critical lack of misunderstanding behind the scientific method which you make in this post. This article basically sums up why your argument is a last ditch flawed stab against scientific materialism and there are others if you're up for reading at a higher level. The ultimate point is simply that scientists make observable and documented claims based on what we see in the physical universe, test those claims and make judgements about them. That's the only way we can be sure whether something exists. Not something as paltry as faith but in trust within a tested and proved technique known as the scientific method which can provide us with the necessary answers. That's why we push boundaries with the Hadron Collider or the Hubble Telescope, because they rely on the foundation of the scientific method. Thus, your argument betrays a critical flaw in your "Faith doesn't only pertain to religious parties" because trust me, based on the strength and weight of scientific support I have for this paragraph, it blatantly does and the crux of your argument is rendered very much baseless and subjective speculation.

And I don't hate people for what they believe, I hate what their belief can do to harm others. Religion has been used as tool of oppression and fear for too long now and can hardly claim to be the only recourse in living a peaceful life when it can be twisted for violence, slavery and restricting our true curiosity. That's why I'm an atheist, because I don't need religion to lead a good life. I can lead one without being in fear of some sexist, jealous deity or being afraid of death that I want to live forever in eternal heaven.

#81 Posted by jackbensley777 (685 posts) - - Show Bio

@imthedamnbatman: huh, well ik their not suppose to... I mean very religious people cant except the theory. Idk never really thought about that

#82 Posted by tupiaz (2241 posts) - - Show Bio

Should storm also be counted as a god since she controls the weather? Should we also accept Professor X as a god if he told us so? There can be numerals Marvel/DC scientific reason not to believe Thor is a god or that any other creature is a god.

#84 Posted by Lvenger (21143 posts) - - Show Bio

@imthedamnbatman: Well let me put it this way. I am now definitely not responding after this post because if I continue this, it could derail the thread and turn it into the Religion Beta thread. There are countless flaws and mistakes in your error full post but if I continue debating with you, that would hijack the thread.

However, I will answer your question as to what I see the point of living to be. It's rather simple actually, since I only believe in one physical, material life, I think I and other humans should be perfectly good in this life for the sake of being good rather than just because some dusty old book from an invisible Skyfather tells us to otherwise he'll flood the planet and kill us all. To reverse your question around, I do have nothing to die for but I have everything to live for. The fact I believe in one life only means I cherish living more from the friends I make to the knowledge I learn, the skills I gain and even, to use a comic book example, the comics I read. It's better explained in this blog/video of a Ricky Gervais interview but that's similar to how I feel on the matter. I don't see anything wrong or pointless with living only one life even though I don't think we had a creator and I don't think we'd live forever. How boring would that be? It makes this life pointless because whatever we do in this life, we basically learn everything in the next. And there's no empirical evidence for it but that's another matter entirely. That's something religion holds for people, comfort in death and comfort that their loved ones may live on. I lost someone I cared about deeply over a year ago in January and I went to a religious funeral held in her service. But for me, it mattered most how she'd lived her life to the utmost and what memories and teachings she'd past on to me and all her loved ones.

In short, that's why I don't fear death anymore. The blackness of non existence can be chalked up to a nice long sleep which doesn't sound so bad and we become part of a much bigger picture. Our atoms and our very beings break down into the fabric of the Earth and the universe from which we are made and I'm fine with that. As long as I live a good life doing what I think is right and leaving memories in the minds of those I leave behind. Thought it'd be better to end on a more positive note than criticising your flawed arguments and misinterpreted statements.

#85 Edited by DarkDay (634 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby said:

@imthedamnbatman said:

@shawnbaby: Of course to all 3 points, with the exception of the half of the 3rd. Science, at times, works completely on faith.

Also to address your final comment;

Science blew up 70,000+ people in under 5 seconds. And that's only one instance. Neither side is without guilt.

Science and Faith are on completely opposite spectrums. Faith exists without logic or supporting evidence. Science requires both.

"Science" doesn't kill anyone. Never has. People decide to kill people. Often in the name of religion.

The Manhattan project would like a word with you. Also I actually have to agree with @imthedamnbatman here because you can't throw religion under the bus for something that people did that first directly defies the teachings of said religions and then add the whole people decide to kill people part on the end as if that only holds up under a single set of circumstances that apply to science alone. Either people are to blame, or things like art, science, media, and whatever else someone claims forced them into committing atrocities are to blame.

You used the Crusades as an example, well I'd point out that a number of Crusades were mostly used as a way for the Palpacy of the time to seize land, cities, and riches to pad their own coffers and to strike fear into what they saw as a group of religious rivals and upstarts. Oh and then that is only taking into account "crusades" taken against another religion. The Catholic Church of the time had crusades against political rivals...so yeah...we say religion now, but we forget that once upon a time the church was the government as much as it was the supposed spiritual voice of God. There were no doubt religious fanatics, but it seems pretty far fetched to blame all the violence that happened in decidedly different times as purely religion's doing. Politics played huge roles in these sorts of things and that's even the case later down the line as witch burnings started taking place. You could accuse your political rival (heck even your romantic rival) just because you had power. The church had all the power at that point sure, but that falls less on religion and more on power corrupting and people doing whatever they want while using whatever available means to justify themselves to the public at large.

#86 Posted by Shawnbaby (10869 posts) - - Show Bio

@darkday said:

@shawnbaby said:

@imthedamnbatman said:

@shawnbaby: Of course to all 3 points, with the exception of the half of the 3rd. Science, at times, works completely on faith.

Also to address your final comment;

Science blew up 70,000+ people in under 5 seconds. And that's only one instance. Neither side is without guilt.

Science and Faith are on completely opposite spectrums. Faith exists without logic or supporting evidence. Science requires both.

"Science" doesn't kill anyone. Never has. People decide to kill people. Often in the name of religion.

The Manhattan project would like a word with you. Also I actually have to agree with @imthedamnbatman here because you can't throw religion under the bus for something that people did that first directly defies the teachings of said religions and then add the whole people decide to kill people part on the end as if that only holds up under a single set of circumstance that apply to science alone. Either people are to blame, or things like art, science, media, and whatever else someone claims forced them into committing atrocities are to blame.

You used the Crusades as an example, well I'd point out that a number of Crusades were mostly used as a way for the Palpacy of the time to seize land, cities, and riches to pad their own coffers and to strike fear into what they saw as a group of religious rivals and upstarts. Oh and then that is only taking into account "crusades" taken against another religion. The Catholic Church of the time had crusades against political rivals...so yeah...we say religion now, but we forget that once upon a time the church was the government as much as it was the supposed spiritual voice of God. There were no doubt religious fanatics, but it seems pretty far fetched to blame all the violence that happened in decidedly different times as purely religion's doing. Politics played huge roles in these sorts of things and that's even the case later down the line as witch burnings started taking place. You could accuse your political rival (heck even your romantic rival) just because you had power. The church had all the power at that point sure, but that falls less on religion and more on power corrupting and people doing whatever they want while using whatever available means to justify themselves to the public at large.

Everything you said about the Papacy and the Crusades strengthens my point. They were using the Name of God to Murder, Rape, Steal, and Torture...not just people of opposing religions...but anyone that stood in their way. That's what religion gets you.

Yes, the Manhattan Project. Lots of Peaople Died. In the Long Run though it probably saved more lives. And The Fatman and Little Boy weren't dropped by corrupt officials seeking more power for themselves. They were dropped to end a war that had already cost Millions of Lives.

Science has done far more for the advancement of Society than Religion ever has. Hell, we couldn't even be having this discussion right now if it were not for Science.

Religion stands in the way of Progress more often than not.

#87 Edited by DarkDay (634 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby said:

@darkday said:

@shawnbaby said:

@imthedamnbatman said:

@shawnbaby: Of course to all 3 points, with the exception of the half of the 3rd. Science, at times, works completely on faith.

Also to address your final comment;

Science blew up 70,000+ people in under 5 seconds. And that's only one instance. Neither side is without guilt.

Science and Faith are on completely opposite spectrums. Faith exists without logic or supporting evidence. Science requires both.

"Science" doesn't kill anyone. Never has. People decide to kill people. Often in the name of religion.

The Manhattan project would like a word with you. Also I actually have to agree with @imthedamnbatman here because you can't throw religion under the bus for something that people did that first directly defies the teachings of said religions and then add the whole people decide to kill people part on the end as if that only holds up under a single set of circumstance that apply to science alone. Either people are to blame, or things like art, science, media, and whatever else someone claims forced them into committing atrocities are to blame.

You used the Crusades as an example, well I'd point out that a number of Crusades were mostly used as a way for the Palpacy of the time to seize land, cities, and riches to pad their own coffers and to strike fear into what they saw as a group of religious rivals and upstarts. Oh and then that is only taking into account "crusades" taken against another religion. The Catholic Church of the time had crusades against political rivals...so yeah...we say religion now, but we forget that once upon a time the church was the government as much as it was the supposed spiritual voice of God. There were no doubt religious fanatics, but it seems pretty far fetched to blame all the violence that happened in decidedly different times as purely religion's doing. Politics played huge roles in these sorts of things and that's even the case later down the line as witch burnings started taking place. You could accuse your political rival (heck even your romantic rival) just because you had power. The church had all the power at that point sure, but that falls less on religion and more on power corrupting and people doing whatever they want while using whatever available means to justify themselves to the public at large.

Everything you said about the Papacy and the Crusades strengthens my point. They were using the Name of God to Murder, Rape, Steal, and Torture...not just people of opposing religions...but anyone that stood in their way. That's what religion gets you.

Yes, the Manhattan Project. Lots of Peaople Died. In the Long Run though it probably saved more lives. And The Fatman and Little Boy weren't dropped by corrupt officials seeking more power for themselves. They were dropped to end a war that had already cost Millions of Lives.

Science has done far more for the advancement of Society than Religion ever has. Hell, we couldn't even be having this discussion right now if it were not for Science.

Religion stands in the way of Progress more often than not.

That's fine, but it does not strengthen your point. That would be like oh that tyrant was a political leader...then let's do away with all politics. Something being used for someone's personal agenda to the detriment of others doesn't some how invalidate that thing. Heck you could say the same thing about "In the name of God" about any human communal system that ever was. Being social animals, human beings create societies and anywhere there is a group of people then there is a social dynamic that can be abused and that has nothing to do with religion. Science by the way isn't some sort of unbesmirched entity of uncorruptable perfection. There have been terrible experiments done in the name of science that are just as atrocious as any political corruption you care to name.

So are we trying to argue that there was no other way to end the Japanese-American conflict than nuclear annihilation of innocent people? They didn't drop some surgical strike (which I'd point out really aren't that surgical in real life). I'd also argue that saved more lives part. You see because it is easy to say those sort of things in hindsight after people are dead and when the winners are writing the history books, but neither you nor I know how things could have gone, we are simply left with what is. And what I'm saying is that without a Scientific breakthrough all of those people would have lived longer lives.

Again, you keep saying that about science and how religion can't stack up to it in regards to the advancement of society..and again I think you are looking at this pretty one dimensionally. Science has provided us with technological breakthroughs, this is true. However most of those breakthroughs harken back to education. If you don't think the church of old hasn't anything to do with the education of now, then I don't know what to tell you. Religion has been the inspiration for some of the worlds most well known and most influential works of art, literature, music, and religion is probably the reason we as human beings first decided to put pen to paper.

You keep saying religion, as if there is just the one or that it wasn't religion that gave birth to man's capacity for questioning not only his world but also himself. Religions are the basis of pretty much every human culture on this planet. It was religion that made us ask new questions and then answer them. Religion leads to science, at least as so far as humans are concerned.

Mythology is the study of religions. I know that some people don't seem capable of grasping that one or think that mythology is some sort of dirty word when it comes to anything dealing with a faith still practiced, but there you go. I had a professor once who used to say that all mythology is true in its time, and that my friend is true. Myth is the way that humanity originally explained the mysteries of its world (sometimes literally, other times figuratively). They may not have been logical and measured answers, made of careful research but adversely they weren't any less essential to the human understanding of well pretty much everything. Also they were essential for establishing most of the cornerstones of what it means to be human or to have a culture or have an identity beyond the single individual.

If you said that you find religion archaic and outdated, I could see where you're coming from, but standing in the way of progress? Really? Religion has led the way in progress and if science is humanity's conscious mind, then without a doubt religion is its subconscious. You don't get one without the other in my opinion.

#88 Edited by Shawnbaby (10869 posts) - - Show Bio

@darkday said:

@shawnbaby said:

@darkday said:

@shawnbaby said:

@imthedamnbatman said:

@shawnbaby: Of course to all 3 points, with the exception of the half of the 3rd. Science, at times, works completely on faith.

Also to address your final comment;

Science blew up 70,000+ people in under 5 seconds. And that's only one instance. Neither side is without guilt.

Science and Faith are on completely opposite spectrums. Faith exists without logic or supporting evidence. Science requires both.

"Science" doesn't kill anyone. Never has. People decide to kill people. Often in the name of religion.

The Manhattan project would like a word with you. Also I actually have to agree with @imthedamnbatman here because you can't throw religion under the bus for something that people did that first directly defies the teachings of said religions and then add the whole people decide to kill people part on the end as if that only holds up under a single set of circumstance that apply to science alone. Either people are to blame, or things like art, science, media, and whatever else someone claims forced them into committing atrocities are to blame.

You used the Crusades as an example, well I'd point out that a number of Crusades were mostly used as a way for the Palpacy of the time to seize land, cities, and riches to pad their own coffers and to strike fear into what they saw as a group of religious rivals and upstarts. Oh and then that is only taking into account "crusades" taken against another religion. The Catholic Church of the time had crusades against political rivals...so yeah...we say religion now, but we forget that once upon a time the church was the government as much as it was the supposed spiritual voice of God. There were no doubt religious fanatics, but it seems pretty far fetched to blame all the violence that happened in decidedly different times as purely religion's doing. Politics played huge roles in these sorts of things and that's even the case later down the line as witch burnings started taking place. You could accuse your political rival (heck even your romantic rival) just because you had power. The church had all the power at that point sure, but that falls less on religion and more on power corrupting and people doing whatever they want while using whatever available means to justify themselves to the public at large.

Everything you said about the Papacy and the Crusades strengthens my point. They were using the Name of God to Murder, Rape, Steal, and Torture...not just people of opposing religions...but anyone that stood in their way. That's what religion gets you.

Yes, the Manhattan Project. Lots of Peaople Died. In the Long Run though it probably saved more lives. And The Fatman and Little Boy weren't dropped by corrupt officials seeking more power for themselves. They were dropped to end a war that had already cost Millions of Lives.

Science has done far more for the advancement of Society than Religion ever has. Hell, we couldn't even be having this discussion right now if it were not for Science.

Religion stands in the way of Progress more often than not.

That's fine, but it does not strengthen your point. That would be like oh that tyrant was a political leader...then let's do away with all politics. Something being used for someone's personal agenda to the detriment of others doesn't some how invalidate that thing. Heck you could say the same thing about "In the name of God" about any human communal system that ever was. Being social animals, human beings create societies and anywhere there is a group of people then there is a social dynamic that can be abused and that has nothing to do with religion. Science by the way isn't some sort of unbesmirched entity of uncorruptable perfection. There have been terrible experiments done in the name of science that are just as atrocious as any political corruption you care to name.

So are we trying to argue that there was no other way to end the Japanese-American conflict than nuclear annihilation of innocent people? They didn't drop some surgical strike (which I'd point out really aren't that surgical in real life). I'd also argue that saved more lives part. You see because it is easy to say those sort of things in hindsight after people are dead and when the winners are writing the history books, but neither you nor I know how things could have gone, we are simply left with what is. And what I'm saying is that without a Scientific breakthrough all of those people would have lived longer lives.

Again, you keep saying that about science and how religion can't stack up to it in regards to the advancement of society..and again I think you are looking at this pretty one dimensionally. Science has provided us with technological breakthroughs, this is true. However most of those breakthroughs harken back to education. If you don't think the church of old hasn't anything to do with the education of now, then I don't know what to tell you. Religion has been the inspiration for some of the worlds most well known and most influential works of art, literature, music, and religion is probably the reason we as human beings first decided to put pen to paper.

You keep saying religion, as if there is just the one or that it wasn't religion that gave birth to man's capacity for questioning not only his world but also himself. Religions are the basis of pretty much every human culture on this planet. It was religion that made us ask new questions and then answer them. Religion leads to science, at least as so far as humans are concerned.

Mythology is the study of religions. I know that some people don't seem capable of grasping that one or think that mythology is some sort of dirty word when it comes to anything dealing with a faith still practiced, but there you go. I had a professor once who used to say that all mythology is true in its time, and that my friend is true. Myth is the way that humanity originally explained the mysteries of its world (sometimes literally, other times figuratively). They may not have been logical and measured answers, made of careful research but adversely they weren't any less essential to the human understanding of well pretty much everything. Also they were essential for establishing most of the cornerstones of what it means to be human or to have a culture or have an identity beyond the single individual.

If you said that you find religion archaic and outdated, I could see where you're coming from, but standing in the way of progress? Really? Religion has led the way in progress and if science is humanity's conscious mind, then without a doubt religion is its subconscious. You don't get one without the other in my opinion.

Religion doesn't make people ask questions. It stops people from asking them. When truths are discovered that contradict with the teachings of that religion...those truths are all too often discarded. Look at what happened to Galileo. He was brought before the Inquisition for daring to suggest that the Earth revolves around the Sun...and not the other way around. Turns out he was right all along.

Art existed long before religion. You can look back at Cave Drawings made by Primitive Humans to see the truth of that.

Religion is halting progress all around you...not just scientifically...but socially as well. Homosexuals can't get married in many states because of Religion. Christianity (and many other religions) define Homosexuality as an Abomination. Stem Cell research was halted because of Religion. Research that could lead to the cures for many diseases.

Every day all over the world people are killing other people simply because they don't pray to the right god.

#89 Posted by DarkDay (634 posts) - - Show Bio

@darkday said:

@shawnbaby said:

@darkday said:

@shawnbaby said:

@imthedamnbatman said:

@shawnbaby: Of course to all 3 points, with the exception of the half of the 3rd. Science, at times, works completely on faith.

Also to address your final comment;

Science blew up 70,000+ people in under 5 seconds. And that's only one instance. Neither side is without guilt.

Science and Faith are on completely opposite spectrums. Faith exists without logic or supporting evidence. Science requires both.

"Science" doesn't kill anyone. Never has. People decide to kill people. Often in the name of religion.

The Manhattan project would like a word with you. Also I actually have to agree with @imthedamnbatman here because you can't throw religion under the bus for something that people did that first directly defies the teachings of said religions and then add the whole people decide to kill people part on the end as if that only holds up under a single set of circumstance that apply to science alone. Either people are to blame, or things like art, science, media, and whatever else someone claims forced them into committing atrocities are to blame.

You used the Crusades as an example, well I'd point out that a number of Crusades were mostly used as a way for the Palpacy of the time to seize land, cities, and riches to pad their own coffers and to strike fear into what they saw as a group of religious rivals and upstarts. Oh and then that is only taking into account "crusades" taken against another religion. The Catholic Church of the time had crusades against political rivals...so yeah...we say religion now, but we forget that once upon a time the church was the government as much as it was the supposed spiritual voice of God. There were no doubt religious fanatics, but it seems pretty far fetched to blame all the violence that happened in decidedly different times as purely religion's doing. Politics played huge roles in these sorts of things and that's even the case later down the line as witch burnings started taking place. You could accuse your political rival (heck even your romantic rival) just because you had power. The church had all the power at that point sure, but that falls less on religion and more on power corrupting and people doing whatever they want while using whatever available means to justify themselves to the public at large.

Everything you said about the Papacy and the Crusades strengthens my point. They were using the Name of God to Murder, Rape, Steal, and Torture...not just people of opposing religions...but anyone that stood in their way. That's what religion gets you.

Yes, the Manhattan Project. Lots of Peaople Died. In the Long Run though it probably saved more lives. And The Fatman and Little Boy weren't dropped by corrupt officials seeking more power for themselves. They were dropped to end a war that had already cost Millions of Lives.

Science has done far more for the advancement of Society than Religion ever has. Hell, we couldn't even be having this discussion right now if it were not for Science.

Religion stands in the way of Progress more often than not.

That's fine, but it does not strengthen your point. That would be like oh that tyrant was a political leader...then let's do away with all politics. Something being used for someone's personal agenda to the detriment of others doesn't some how invalidate that thing. Heck you could say the same thing about "In the name of God" about any human communal system that ever was. Being social animals, human beings create societies and anywhere there is a group of people then there is a social dynamic that can be abused and that has nothing to do with religion. Science by the way isn't some sort of unbesmirched entity of uncorruptable perfection. There have been terrible experiments done in the name of science that are just as atrocious as any political corruption you care to name.

So are we trying to argue that there was no other way to end the Japanese-American conflict than nuclear annihilation of innocent people? They didn't drop some surgical strike (which I'd point out really aren't that surgical in real life). I'd also argue that saved more lives part. You see because it is easy to say those sort of things in hindsight after people are dead and when the winners are writing the history books, but neither you nor I know how things could have gone, we are simply left with what is. And what I'm saying is that without a Scientific breakthrough all of those people would have lived longer lives.

Again, you keep saying that about science and how religion can't stack up to it in regards to the advancement of society..and again I think you are looking at this pretty one dimensionally. Science has provided us with technological breakthroughs, this is true. However most of those breakthroughs harken back to education. If you don't think the church of old hasn't anything to do with the education of now, then I don't know what to tell you. Religion has been the inspiration for some of the worlds most well known and most influential works of art, literature, music, and religion is probably the reason we as human beings first decided to put pen to paper.

You keep saying religion, as if there is just the one or that it wasn't religion that gave birth to man's capacity for questioning not only his world but also himself. Religions are the basis of pretty much every human culture on this planet. It was religion that made us ask new questions and then answer them. Religion leads to science, at least as so far as humans are concerned.

Mythology is the study of religions. I know that some people don't seem capable of grasping that one or think that mythology is some sort of dirty word when it comes to anything dealing with a faith still practiced, but there you go. I had a professor once who used to say that all mythology is true in its time, and that my friend is true. Myth is the way that humanity originally explained the mysteries of its world (sometimes literally, other times figuratively). They may not have been logical and measured answers, made of careful research but adversely they weren't any less essential to the human understanding of well pretty much everything. Also they were essential for establishing most of the cornerstones of what it means to be human or to have a culture or have an identity beyond the single individual.

If you said that you find religion archaic and outdated, I could see where you're coming from, but standing in the way of progress? Really? Religion has led the way in progress and if science is humanity's conscious mind, then without a doubt religion is its subconscious. You don't get one without the other in my opinion.

Religion doesn't make people ask questions. It stops people from asking them. When truths are discovered that contradict with the teachings of that religion...those truths are all too often discarded. Look at what happened to Galileo. He was brought before the Inquisition for daring to suggest that the Earth revolves around the Sun...and not the other way around. Turns out he was right all along.

Art existed long before religion. You can look back at Cave Drawings made by Primitive Humans to see the truth of that.

Religion is halting progress all around you...not just scientifically...but socially as well. Homosexuals can't get married in many states because of Religion. Christianity (and many other religions) define Homosexuality as an Abomination. Stem Cell research was halted because of Religion. Research that could lead to the cures for many diseases.

Every day all over the world people are killing other people simply because they don't pray to the right god.

Are you kidding me? You are mixing up the concept of religion with the practice of a religious oriented governing body. The two are not the same, even when one of them was more popular they were never the same. The faith practiced by the people shared little in common with the dogma they received from what was little more than a glorified bureaucracy. There is a difference between religious practices, religion itself, and government enacted upon from a supposed religious base. You bring up Galileo but fail to bring up that Galileo himself had support from the Jesuits pretty much until he took shots at the Pope for the decision that was handed down. The Pope whom was at the time basically one of the most powerful people on the planet. He was right the Pope was wrong, yay him, but the focus there wasn't scientific fact vs religious ideology, it was the fact that a man with minimal status was taking shots at a guy that felt he had the right (and the power, mostly the power) to take on any ruler of the time and win. The Pope is infallible and he believed his own hype. So yeah it was a power play and it was petty.

Also there was that whole thing about the church having much earlier been the empirical leader in the sciences. You know, building schools, universities, and hospitals. I'll be the first to admit that all things considered they probably weren't much by the standards of today seeing as how we on average are much more well educated than our ancestors were, but seriously everyone tries the old "the church hates science argument" and it is about as true as it always was, with that being not very. Though that's not to say that corruption and grasping for power didn't basically throw Europe into some troubled times and that basic human nature and superstition make for some black history books. The problem however shows up when someone tries to use certain eras ripe with corruption as some sort of general- "that is what those people are like" argument.

Art may have existed before religion. The truth is that we don't know. There are a great many theories, but again we aren't certain. However cave paintings probably aren't just histories that someone scratched onto a wall, and they all probably weren't all just pictures to represent whatever object either. More than likely some of them are icons in the religious context. Again, religion is not, nor never will it be interchangeable with Christianity. Before there were gods with a little g, our ancestors believed in the spirits of the animals they killed, or the power of their forms to affect the world in both positive and negative ways.

Homosexuals can' t get married because of our society and its reluctance to move away from its own ingrained prejudices. It also doesn't help that America is somewhat sexually repressed as a nation seeing as we hold on to a strange core of puritan ideals. Talking about homosexuality, then brings sex into conversation by default seeing as it is a sexual orientation and thus it is suddenly awkward with everyone being repressed all around. Of course people are ready to use religion as their go to reason sure, but then they would be trying to do the same thing 60 years ago about interracial couples and there is no convenient Leviticus 18:22 scapegoat for that...

I'm not trying to convince you that religion is flawless any more than I accepted your, science is the flawless bastion of life and love in the world. Religion and science both are human representations of ideas and ideals. You could argue that science cares less about ideals, but then again even hard data doesn't exist in a vacuum with no bias. Now being such they are as imperfect and contradictory as the people that created them.

Stem cell research is sort of a tricky thing however, because it depends on the particular type of stem cell research you're referring to. I assume we're talking about the elephant in the room, thus embryonic stem research. This however leads to the discussion of life in terms of what and where it starts for humans. Me, I'm not the guy to have that conversation and if I was, then I certainly wouldn't be having it on the internet. I will however point out that there are other forms of stem cell research that have a far less steep ethical entry point and that I feel that it isn't religion so much holding up embryonic stem cell research so much as people asking...are we actually pouring human lives into this thing? Honestly I can't say. I also can't put a price on existing human life versus hypothetical human life that may never be. Honestly if I had an army of lawyers and scientist I'm not sure how valid my argument would be one way or the other (to either side of this argument) and I wouldn't exactly feel like anyone is holding up progress by not agreeing wholeheartedly with my decision.

Everyday people are also killing themselves and others over a great many things. Sometimes its wealth, sometimes its land, water, food, love, greed, lust, the list goes on forever. People are pretty fond of killing each other and the fact that religion can give them a reason is less a strike against religion and more a commentary on how fond people are of killing each other in my opinion. This of course is always the argument that comes with religion on the internet, people line up to tell you about the so called "Holy Wars" but then they forget about all the orphanages, schools, wells being dug, food, medicine, and aid being given by religious organizations and individuals. Of course on the internet it also always comes back to Christianity = religion but I'm going to say that is less people purposefully ignoring everything else and instead assuming that they are sticking with what they're familiar with or at least most familiar with in their particular cultural sphere.

#90 Posted by Shawnbaby (10869 posts) - - Show Bio

@darkday: First off, I'm going to stop quoting because the text wall is getting unmanageable.

Second, I've never claimed that Science is Flawless. All I've said that, as a whole, it's had a more productive role in the development of Society than Religion has.

Third, You attack me for "mixing up" the governing body of the religion with the religion itself. I find this to be a mighty fine hair to split.

I also find that the difference between "Religion" and "Governing based on Religion" to be a mighty fine hair to split...especially when the Governing Body is using the texts of a religion as it standing argument.

As far as "Religion supporting science" goes...sure...they will...as long as the science doesn't go against their teachings. If the Bible (or other Holy Text) has an explanation for something and Science has another...all too often the Scientific Theory is attacked as being "heretical". Galileo wasn't the only Scientist who has had to go up against the Church. Darwinists have had their fair share of run-ins.

For Homophobia...I do not accept your belief that America is just "sexually repressed" and uses the Bible as a scapegoat to deny Same-Sex Marriages. The most vocal opponents of Same-Sex Marriage come from Religious Organizations. Recent studies show that 55% of Americans support Same-Sex Marriage, 36% oppose it, and 9% are either unsure or don't feel strongly about it either way.

I'm well aware that Christianity has created schools and orphanages and the like especially in the non-developed countries. Good on them. Now if only they'd stop teaching these people that Birth Control is some kind of crime against God.

If it seems my argument has a "Christianity = Religion" argument it is only because I live in a Country that Judeo-Christian religions are the most dominant. It is, as you say, the religion most of us here are most familiar with.

Now, I think we've gone far enough Off Topic here....this is supposed to be about whether Christians in Comic Books can still have Faith with the proven existence of so many other gods. At some point it became about Science vs Religion. I don't think either of us is going to change our personal views on religion and suggest that we just agree to disagree.

#91 Edited by MaccyD (5108 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't care for the flame war/wall of text but people! Reed Richards is an Agnostic/Pantheist not an Atheist, get your facts right! grrr this is a bigger misinterpretation than Hank Pym being a wife beater!

Thanks for reading my mini-rant, I condensed it for your enjoyment! ;)

#92 Edited by waezi2 (8410 posts) - - Show Bio

Online