Locke

No. Religion doesn't try to explain the science behind it at all. I can easily say both of these two statements: 1. The human brain is a product of evolution of species of millions of years. 2. God created the human brain. My point is that Barihawk is not trying to "fill in holes" with religion that can later be filled in by science. He is offering something entirely different than what science offers. If something is "explainable through science," as you suggest - that doesn't discount religion. Barihawk, I believe, would offer that scientific discovery and explanation is only further reason to believe in God.

You misunderstood my question. I believe God is the ultimate cause of our existence. You believe that God is just my way of filling in holes of ignorance that scientific phenomena will replace when we fully understand it. Don't give me an example that pertains to Roman theology, because I didn't ask about Roman theology. I asked about my belief that God is the ultimate cause of our existence. Give me an example of any scientific phenomena that when fully understandable, replaces my explanation that God as the ultimate cause..

I'm just trying to get an understanding on your belief. It is your belief that you get to pick and choose what you want to believe from the Bible, and that by doing so you are still a Christian. What if you were to pick and choose what you thought was accurate in and inaccurate in the Bible and I did the same thing. However, we find out that our beliefs on what is true in the Bible and what is false are exactly opposite. We don't share a single common belief. Are we both still Christians?

What's an example of scientific phenomena that we fully understand that has filled the holes of ignorance and replaced my explanation that God is the ultimate causality?

So who decides what extent that is?

Really? I don't agree. I view the Bible as a book of context reflecting the views of Jesus' disciples and followers, they arent all necessarily Jesus' views. Through their views I can interpret and accept my own views about him and how he spread God's word. As I said before the Bible is open for interpretation, which is why it will remain. So you get to be the one who decides what is true and what isn't?

It's not a "defense," as you suggest - it's the very point I am making. Science can and will provide explanations to the physical causes of the universe - but no discovery will ever prove anything about a potential existence beyond this physical world. Compare, once again (but in more detail) a physicist and an anthropologist. The anthropologist, no matter how much he studies in his field, will never be able to explain the physics in the universe. He can explain why most societies on earth discriminated against women for thousands of years, but he can't explain (in his field of study) why when a man 1,000 years ago pushed his wife and she lost balance - she fell to the ground. No matter what discovery in the field of anthropology that is made, the anthropologist will never be able to explain gravity because gravity is outside of the realm of the study of anthropology. No matter how many discoveries are made in this physical universe by science, it will never be able to explain, prove, or disprove the existence of something beyond this physical existence. It just can't happen.

Yes, fair enough. But I suppose I just lack that faith in that "something greater" that cannot be explained by science. God supposedly created all this, therefore I believe the question of his existence is a scientific one. I know a lot of people would disagree with me, but that's what I believe. I'm not saying scientists are actively trying to prove/disprove God (at least, I hope they're not) but it might be a consequence of some scientific discovery. Just like the discovery of evolution lead to a lot of people losing their faith, some scientific principle might answer some greater question at some point. I don't know when and I don't know how, but it might. I fear you are confusing scientific discovery causing people to lose their faith, and it answering a "greater" question. The nature of science is to focus on the physical universe - and that's all. No discovery of the physical universe will ever disprove the idea that there is something beyond the physical universe. You don't personally feel the need to believe in something greater, but many people do.

I know. But that's what a majority of religions do. And like I said...you might choose to believe we don't have a "purpose," but a large majority of humans have the inclination to believe so, and until that inclination goes away, religion will exist. That's irrelevant. I think science is beautiful because I see it as a beautiful work of God. The point here though isn't a bad thing about science. All we're saying is that science and religion have two different goals. One is trying to explain the "why's" of the physical universe, and one is trying to explain the "why's" of a possible metaphysical existence. Look at it this way. Take two people. One person is a physicist, and one person is an anthropologist. You wouldn't say that the physicist is working towards explaining the nature of different societies in different parts of the world, would you? That would be preposterous. Science is not looking to explain "something greater" - it is only looking to explain the universe as it physically exists. To suggest otherwise would be silly.

The point of science is not to discover a purpose for mankind - it is to discover how the universe works. As soon as you start talking about the purpose of mankind, you have moved off of science by definition. Maybe there isn't a purpose for mankind, but as long as people desire to believe in a purpose, religion will exist. Not all religions have attempted to "explain" things that science has discovered as you suggest. Nor will any scientist tell you that the purpose of science is to understand the purpose of mankind. It's just not what science is.

No, but we're working on it. I'd actually argue that that is incorrect. Science is attempting to figure out the physical "why's" of the universe, but not metaphysical "why's." There is no concern in science over the "something greater" that religion offers.

Crikey that took some reading. Okay, I will concede that I didn't fully understand the historical context of the incident. I misinterpreted it, sorry. However, my point stands that the God of the Old Testament is one that frequently ordered acts that by today's standards would be deemed cruel and unncessary, and these were particularly well carried out by people who we consider pillars of faith in modern society. I've attempted to read as much of the thread as I could so forgive me if I overlooked the answer to this question. What do you believe is the primary difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament in terms of the group of people God is speaking to?

If you read the Gospel, you will see that the Pharisee's attempting to get Jesus to say things that contradict the scriptures, yet he avoids their tricks. They didn't execute him because they believed he was preaching against their morals, they executed him because they didn't believe he was the Son of God like he claimed he was. If you look at the contradictions in the Bible and place them in cultural context, you will see that Jesus in fact did not contradict what was said before, he clarified. One major, and often overlooked, difference in culture's between the Old and New Testament is in the majority of places in the Old Testament, the Hebrews were governing themselves. In most of the passages that seem to contradict beliefs thousands of years later, usually found in the laws in Leviticus, the orders given were orders not of morality, but of how to govern the state. Because of this, Jesus' message was not one of, "You are wrong, we are changing it," but instead, "You have interpreted this wrong and gone astray of the Lord." During Jesus' gospel, people were becoming individually self-righteous over those they deemed sinners. God never encouraged this kind of behavior in the Old Testament, but people were interpreting the scriptures that were written for very specific reasons, to assert their own moral superiority, which was wrong. So when Jesus said, "You have heard an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but I tell you do not resist an evil person. Whoever may slap you across the face, turn the other cheek," he is not nullifying the ancient scriptures because the ancient scriptures were never intended to be universal. You ask me how we know it's not going to change? Well according to Christian belief, Jesus came once (as predicted in several Old Testament books) and will come one more time in which the Earth will be destroyed and believers and non-believers will be separated. It's not like everyone was "surprised" that Jesus came down and did what he did...it had been predicted in the Old Testament that it would happen. He was punished not for "changing the rules" but he was punished for claiming he was the Son of God when those didn't believe him. When I made that comment earlier I said to PM me if you wanted to know why, which you never did. There is so much more to it that I just don't have time to type right now. Sorry. People != God. It would be foolish to make that assumption.

My point is that you don't believe in absolutes, but you believe discrimination to be bad. That's been my entire point for this entire thread. Your belief about discrimination is contradictory to the rest of your beliefs. If you believe everything to be subjective, and discrimination to be always bad, then you are making universal statements. Just because you say it's only about ONE non-existent state doesn't exempt your universal beliefs from being universal.

I understand people's beliefs - I just want to make sure they are logically sound, which they usually aren't. I don't know what question you're speaking of... maybe I missed it.

This is ridiculous. You continue to presume that only one state, and one state's principle's exist. Quit doing that. Maybe I should go through the thread and count how many times I've told you to quit doing that. Wait - in your eyes discrimination is always bad? That's an absolute. Contradiction! Maybe I should count how many times you've contradicted yourself as well.

Really? Unfortunately, you are not only defending his statement as correct, but you are also changing what he said in order to make it correct.

I'll tell you why: So I'm confused by your stance after reading your conversation with Ambassador. Please clarify this for me: Is discrimination always bad?

I don't understand what the humiliation would have been if he had corrected himself initially, like I have done before when saying things that are factually incorrect. I do remember that question, but I wonder why when he says something so blatantly incorrect, you try to defend the statement as correct. It seems odd to me that you continue to try and draw the attention away from the mistake and towards this self-caused "humiliation."

No I'm not. I'm correcting the facts. It's a fairly interesting observation how much both you and Tigra object to ever admitting something you've said is wrong when it blatantly is. You said every word of the Bible, responding to a post that quoted Matthew, which is in the New Testament. The New Testament was in fact written by Christians. Therefore, you were wrong. Apparently the something you're not getting is you said every word, not just the Old Testament. It has nothing to do with the difference between the two. "The Bible" is both of them, AND you were responding to a post that was referencing Matthew. What you are guilty of is saying every word when in fact half of the Bible was written by Christians. Christians did not write all of the Bible, but they did write half. Why can you not just admit your first statement was incorrect? I think it's fascinating the lengths you will go to avoid admitting you said something incorrect. Even more fascinating is the lengths that Satenza will go to in order for you to avoid admitting you were wrong when you blatantly were. What prejudice do you all have against truth?

It's still discrimination, it just loses the negative connotation. Which is what I was saying. Satenza said in his initial point that "the law should be blind to discrimination" but that is ridiculous if you believe the law should be left to the majority. The nature of relativism says that every persons opinion if of equal weight. You are correct in saying that does not make that we "should" make a Democratic state because that jumps the is/ought gap which logically can't be done. We're also not saying a democracy is "good," we are saying that in a relativist society where everyone's opinions carry no more weight than everyone else's, that creates a necessary democracy. The use of this discussion is to figure out Satenza's beliefs without contradicting himself, because he currently is doing just that. He believes that A) Any law made by the majority is okay and B) The law should be blind to discrimination. That however is a contradiction because the majority could very easily vote in discriminatory laws, which would make the law not blind to discrimination, and therefore contradict part B. What I loved about your input here is that you highlighted a great point. Universally, Satenza's beliefs do not necessitate any type of governmental structure, but in order to get out of his own contradiction, he necessitates them. That is a point I have been trying to make clear that he keeps avoiding.

Not in a belief system that has no basis on individual sovereignty. Quit saying this. It is not a specific society. It doesn't matter what the reason is, as long as that person believes it will help society. If that person thinks that his likes are what best helps society, then it is just as valid as anything else because there is no absolute way to justify anything. You go in circles over and over and over... I assumed that since you jumped into the discussion, you knew what was going on. If in a relativist society, where "better" doesn't absolutely exist, "better" is left up to the individual for defining. "Better" is different for everyone else. In this society, if someone views discrimination as "better for society" that that is perfectly okay, because no true standard for better exists. For you to say that someone can't vote for discrimination to better society is ridiculous in a society where relativism rules, because "better" is left up to the individual.

Let me bold it so you understand this better. It really isn't hard. He was very specific to say every word, so apparently it mattered to him. I'm just making sure everyone knows what the facts are, so they are not mislead by anything that is false being put off as true. It was his point to say "every word" and that is incorrect. Why do you have such a problem with making sure people are giving true information instead of false information?

Except your belief allows this to be said simultaneously: 1. It is best if the individual is sovereign. 2. It is best if the individual is not sovereign. Those two sentences contradict each other. Since you seem unable to grasp this concept of justification, here's an example: Example Absolute belief: Harm should be avoided. Law: People cannot murder each other. Justification: Because harm should be avoided, and murder harms people, murder should be outlawed. Example 2 Absolute belief: What I like dislike should be avoided. Law: Black people cannot go into public places. Justification: Because what I dislike should be avoided, and I dislike black people being in public places, black people should be banned from public places. Do you see how it is the absolute belief that makes the justification? You can't justify something without an absolute belief. I'm not denying that "better" exists, it is the relativists who deny that. "Better" cannot exist if a "best" does not exist. "Best" does not exist if there is no abo[bleep]e standard to judge it by. A relativist says there are no absolute standards, therefore "best" and consequentially, "better," cannot exist. That's my entire point if you've read the discussion. Claiming that one thing is "better" when you don't believe in "better" is ridiculous. I'm not defying logic at all. You are just showing your lack of understanding of Logic by suggesting so.

Exactly! Your subjective belief system allows for contradictions. Contradictions are illogical. Your belief system allows for illogical happenings. No! I have already stated this many times. "I don't like" is a reason in a subjective society. "Justification" requires an absolute standard which you don't believe in. That is a contradiction. Why do you keep doing that?