| i guess it did but i cant think or find any evidence to support this |
| RRRRRRRRRR |
azzuRe said: Yakub said: >inb4 "Galileo" He was punished for theological heresy, not for his heliocentric theories. And in a protestant country those scientific theories alone would have been enough for him to have been burned at the stake. Anyway, if Galileo had stuck to science and never mentioned the bible then nothing would have happened. Too late mate. You should read the defense for Galileo persecution by the church. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy Galileo was a good man, a good religious man, and yet the close minded people tried to force him to abandon his quest for truth, in favor of the majority. They prefer to maintain the blindness, and only sees his theories as one of 'scientific possibilities' but not truth. Instead they stopped to facilitate his research, imprison him in house arrest, and banned all of his life works for almost one hundred years. >Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally And there was his mistake. I despise biblical literalism, but he had no place making theological statements like that. That was what he was really punished for. moriandrio said: During the Dark Ages the church banned any form of dissections which resulted in the loss of alot knowledge of the anatomy which the romans had aquired (like galens books). The Islamic Empire also had banned the dissections of human bodies. In the late middle ages universities were allowed to do 1 dissection per year (this is still a huge hindrance of the development) They did this for moral reasons. Subjective morality can manifest itself outside of a religious context. This same stigma could have just has easily developed in a non-religious society. There was no superstition or god-fearing in this policy. Thus, I don't think ti's fair to blame that on religion. naens said: Yeah, but historically there were periods where they were science friendly. I think that overall, their impact was slightly positive. Not hugely, but slightly. Yakub said: Protestantism arguably did. Catholicism and Islam were pretty science friendly historically. It's not true. In Islam they had there were a lot of debates about what to do with philosophy, mathematics... For example it was very difficult for them to accept the Khwarizmi methods of calculation, because traditionally they were using their much more restricted tribal pre-Islamic methods. So I would say that in Islam world religion did slow science, but also didn't kill it and allowed to develop. I think in Europe the situation was better (usually when they translated Arabic works in 12-14 centuries, it wasn't forbidden and was spreading rapidly in Europe), but in some fields it was also restricted (like medicine, astronomy). DruxZul said: If he cites some medieval history book will you seriously check to see if its true? Or are you just being obtuse?moriandrio said: During the Dark Ages the church banned any form of dissections which resulted in the loss of alot knowledge of the anatomy which the romans had aquired (like galens books). The Islamic Empire also had banned the dissections of human bodies. In the late middle ages universities were allowed to do 1 dissection per year (this is still a huge hindrance of the development) Ok please cite some kind of source to supplement your statement, otherwise i can only believe that what you are saying is completely made up. Also are we talking about the same religion? I'm talking about Christianity what about you? Edit: I guess you could say I'm being stubborn and not willing to change my view, but before i change my view i want factual evidence cited properly. Xasthur said: lupadim said: the church was also responsible for discovering dozens of knowledges How? By reading old Jewish books? By praying? By burning people? Hey-hey, I didn't know that inquisition was scientific organization. I just can't imagine how much knowledge they discovered with these methods. Especially scientific is that the knowledge thus obtained was forbidden to doubt. It's so scientifically. Before the inquisition, alleged heretics would be brought to the local non-Church affiliated authorities, just like any other criminal. This is a difficult charge to prove and some basic theological training is required to really be a proper judge of what constitutes heresy. Therefore people were executed without a fair trial or a competent judge. The Catholic response to this was the Inquisition. The idea was to provide fair trials with Church-approved judges who actually knew what they were doing. Was it perfect? No. But it was a lot better. A much higher percentage of people was acquitted and rather than executing all who were found guilty, the Church was not typically harsh. Apologetic heretics were allowed to confess, do penance, and be forgiven. If the heretics were unapologetic and refused to reform their behavior then their lives would once again be in the hands of the secular authorities, who executed them. Overall, the Inquisition saved lives. It should also be noted that the Spanish Inquisition was not under Church authority. It was a civil tribunal that replaced the much less harsh Medieval Inquisition which was under Papal control. No, this has nothing to do with science, just thought I'd educate a poor lost soul. GuusWayne said: Both science and religion are incredibly close minded. That's an interesting statement. Please elaborate. Shiratori99 said: Of course it is. Why was Israel established in a place where there were already people? Why couldn't they have gone someplace else? Because of religion. Because that was the holy land. This is also largely why they pushed forward and expanded their territory. And why they insist on having complete, undivided control of Jerusalem. Palestinian and Israeli conflict is not due to religion. Majikkusesu said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war But, yeah, one doesn't need to look much further than stem cell research to see religion/religious morals impeding scientific advancement. The objection to stem cell research lies is based on basic morality rather than scripture or religious superstition. Morality has hugely hindered scientific advancement though. Just ask the Nazis and all other scientists who wanted to transgress moral law for scientific purposes. Are we going to start decrying morality as well? beavis2323 said: i guess it did but i cant think or find any evidence to support this I can imagine. |
PolyphemusDec 3, 2013 7:37 PM
| I am important. I have a girlfriend. Check out my podcast |
Before the inquisition, alleged heretics would be brought to the local non-Church affiliated authorities, just like any other criminal. Do you think that the heretics were someone bad? The Christian church was a fascistic organization. Will you continue to compare Christian Gestapo and lynching? |
| Titan of 20+ virgins club. |
Xasthur said: Notice how I draw a distinction between heretics and normal criminals. No, I don't believe that heresy should be a crime. But, in the context of a theocracy, the church handled them rather gently. Before the inquisition, alleged heretics would be brought to the local non-Church affiliated authorities, just like any other criminal. Do you think that the heretics were someone bad? The Christian church was a fascistic organization. You don't know what "fascism" is. Fascism is an extreme form of nationalism. The Church is inherently opposed to nationalism. Fascists believe that man's first loyalty should be to the state. The Church believes that man's first loyalty should be to god, regardless of their country of origin. This is made clear in scripture, over and over again. Which you would know if you had actually read the Bible before criticizing it. You would also know what "fascism" was if you had set aside your adolescent preconceived notions and payed attention is history class. It's not just a meaningless buzzword.Will you continue to compare Christian Gestapo and lynching? I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Anyway, you ignored the whole crux of my argument and continued to spout things that are not based in fact. Please try again. Explain how the Catholic Inquisition was not a good thing in the context of the time and considering the alternative. |
| I am important. I have a girlfriend. Check out my podcast |
Yakub said: But, in the context of a theocracy, the church handled them rather gently. And making enemies from normal citizens they discovered knowledges. Yakub said: I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Church persecuting people for their beliefs. It's enough to be called "fascistic". Explain how the Catholic Inquisition was not a good thing in the context of the time and considering the alternative. They kill people for their beliefs. For deny to obey their god and pay them for their rituals. Is that a good thing in any context? |
XasthurDec 3, 2013 9:06 PM
| Titan of 20+ virgins club. |
| The day science started to contradict religious beliefs, is the day religion only served to slow progress. |
| The catholic church has funded more research development and done more for the betterment of mankind than any person here ever will. |
JonyJC said: The catholic church has funded more research development and done more for the betterment of mankind than any person here ever will. True. The Catholic Church is the world's largest charitable organization, by far. |
| Let's go bowling. |
ElPysCongroo said: The day science started to contradict religious beliefs, is the day religion only served to slow progress. Ah, November 1st 1000 B.C. I remember it well. |
| I am important. I have a girlfriend. Check out my podcast |
| I'll just post one verse from a 1400 years book, and I want you to judge how Islam slowed down science. From the moment of the Big Bang, the universe has been constantly expanding at a great speed. Scientists compare the expanding universe to the surface of a balloon that is inflated. And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47) The word "heaven," as stated in the verse above, is used in various places in the Qur'an. It is referring to space and the wider universe. the word is used with this meaning, stating that the universe "expands." I wonder how did they know before 1400 years that the universe was expanding. |
| Smiles and laughter are always good, but never forget your Poker Face.~ |
-Zeaos said: They obviously didn't knew... I can't believe this is going to become a religious debate.I'll just post one verse from a 1400 years book, and I want you to judge how Islam slowed down science. From the moment of the Big Bang, the universe has been constantly expanding at a great speed. Scientists compare the expanding universe to the surface of a balloon that is inflated. And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47) The word "heaven," as stated in the verse above, is used in various places in the Qur'an. It is referring to space and the wider universe. the word is used with this meaning, stating that the universe "expands." I wonder how did they know before 1400 years that the universe was expanding. In first place, the universe is not expanding itself. It can be expanding itself, but that is really, just a theory. In second place, I thought Islam was creationist. And in third place, get out, this is not for religious debate |
 |
-Zeaos said: I'll just post one verse from a 1400 years book, and I want you to judge how Islam slowed down science. I'll just post one link from a 12 year old website, and I want YOU to judge how Islam slowed down science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History. -Zeaos said: And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47) The word "heaven," as stated in the verse above, is used in various places in the Qur'an. It is referring to space and the wider universe. the word is used with this meaning, stating that the universe "expands." I wonder how did they know before 1400 years that the universe was expanding. So when they say that when we die we go to heaven, you mean we'll be ejected to outer space right? See the problem with these passages is that the words are vague and has multiple meanings, which people use to justify the view they like by choosing the definition appropriate to the situation. Most people fail to view the context of the passage. See the following verse: "And the earth We have spread out, and excellent is the preparer. (Qur'an, 51:48)" Mind explaining how the Earth is spread, since it's practically a sphere? Also, the following translations say YUSUFALI: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace. PICKTHAL: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof). SHAKIR: And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample. It seems the expansion interpretation was not noticed until after the expansion theory became well known. This kind of thing was what I hated most from religion class... |
Yakub said: The objection to stem cell research lies is based on basic morality rather than scripture or religious superstition. Morality has hugely hindered scientific advancement though. Just ask the Nazis and all other scientists who wanted to transgress moral law for scientific purposes. Are we going to start decrying morality as well? That's like saying religious morals don't play into the opposition of abortion, which is obviously not true. Who do you think lobbies heaviest to prohibit embryonic stem cell research? |
| There's no need for all this tension. |
-Zeaos said: I'll just post one verse from a 1400 years book, and I want you to judge how Islam slowed down science. From the moment of the Big Bang, the universe has been constantly expanding at a great speed. Scientists compare the expanding universe to the surface of a balloon that is inflated. And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47) The word "heaven," as stated in the verse above, is used in various places in the Qur'an. It is referring to space and the wider universe. the word is used with this meaning, stating that the universe "expands." I wonder how did they know before 1400 years that the universe was expanding. There is nothing about universe. You still think that drug tales are full of scientific facts? |
| Titan of 20+ virgins club. |
Majikkusesu said: There's an undeniable correlation. No proof of causation.Yakub said: The objection to stem cell research lies is based on basic morality rather than scripture or religious superstition. Morality has hugely hindered scientific advancement though. Just ask the Nazis and all other scientists who wanted to transgress moral law for scientific purposes. Are we going to start decrying morality as well? That's like saying religious morals don't play into the opposition of abortion, which is obviously not true. Who do you think lobbies heaviest to prohibit embryonic stem cell research? |
| I am important. I have a girlfriend. Check out my podcast |
| the middle (dark) ages most assuredly slowed town technological advancements, but its hard to cast all the blame on religion, there were definitely other problems as well that hindered it, as far as the part religion played it would be more accurate to say that the people who controlled the church felt like there power would be threatened by any new ideas so they attempted to destroy them through fear and killing. this is a problem for any large powerful organization because no matter how good or bad the cause is its still controled by people who in the end only care about themselves and keeping whatever power they have managed to obtain |
Death_Raja said: Who preserved knowledge during those ages? The Church and the monasteries.the middle (dark) ages most assuredly slowed town technological advancements, but its hard to cast all the blame on religion, there were definitely other problems as well that hindered it, |
| I am important. I have a girlfriend. Check out my podcast |
Yakub said: Death_Raja said: Who preserved knowledge during those ages? The Church and the monasteries.the middle (dark) ages most assuredly slowed town technological advancements, but its hard to cast all the blame on religion, there were definitely other problems as well that hindered it, Any proofs? |
| Titan of 20+ virgins club. |
Yakub said: Death_Raja said: Who preserved knowledge during those ages? The Church and the monasteries.the middle (dark) ages most assuredly slowed town technological advancements, but its hard to cast all the blame on religion, there were definitely other problems as well that hindered it, no complaint about monasteries, they did indead, and although the church did keep records they also went after those scientist who preached new ideas or theories than ran counter to the elitist in the church, whiched slowed progress because people had to think of things independently instead of reading what others published |
lupadim said: They obviously didn't knew... I can't believe this is going to become a religious debate. In first place, the universe is not expanding itself. It can be expanding itself, but that is really, just a theory. In second place, I thought Islam was creationist. And in third place, get out, this is not for religious debate I have no idea what you're talking about, first of all, if you're saying that the universe expansion is just a theory then you're not living in this era, please educate yourself first and then come argue with me. Aincrad2013 said: I'll just post one link from a 12 year old website, and I want YOU to judge how Islam slowed down science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History. I don't see anything relevant to what I said, just a side note, most of the geeks theory were completely wrong, for instance, they believed that light comes from our eyes. Aincrad2013 said: So when they say that when we die we go to heaven, you mean we'll be ejected to outer space right? No paradise, see what I did there? Aincrad2013 said: See the problem with these passages is that the words are vague and has multiple meanings, which people use to justify the view they like by choosing the definition appropriate to the situation. Most people fail to view the context of the passage. See the following verse: Ha, it's not vague, since it's TRANSLATED from ARABIC to ENGLISH, and seriously we use the appropriate definition to justify ourselves, you must be stupid my dear friend. Anyway here is a link for several definitions : http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/51/47/ Aincrad2013 said: "And the earth We have spread out, and excellent is the preparer. (Qur'an, 51:48)" Mind explaining how the Earth is spread, since it's practically a sphere? Yes, sure, it's pretty simple, look at your room's floow from a distance 10-20m, is it sphere? no it's flat, if it's sphere, you either have eyes problems, or don't know the difference between flat and sphere. Aincrad2013 said: Also, the following translations say YUSUFALI: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace. PICKTHAL: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof). SHAKIR: And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample. It seems the expansion interpretation was not noticed until after the expansion theory became well known. This kind of thing was what I hated most from religion class... I don't see your point? again it's translated from Arabic to English. Xasthur said: There is nothing about universe. Read above. Xasthur said: We know that the moon does not emit light, but only reflects the light of the Sun. However, in the Qur'an is the moon emits light. In Sura 71:16, in relation to the moon, using the Arabic word "nour" meaning light emission, and not the word "ikaas" meaning reflection. And he made them a month to light, and the sun made the candlestick. (Quran 71:16) First here is the verse translation: "And made the moon therein a [reflected] light and made the sun a burning lamp?" , I don't know where you get your translations but please use this site if you want to argue with me : http://quran.com , since my English isn't my native language and this topic is highly sensitive. Second "nour" doesn't mean "light emission" it means light ONLY, see what I did there? third to answer your question and satisfy you with an answer read this: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/moonlight_wc.html Xasthur said: Quran spreads the idea that the Sun less than the Earth, and that the sun sets in the dirty water. Hm? Xasthur said: The Qur'an mentions many times that the sun and moon move in orbit, but never says that the earth does too. This is consistent with the belief that the sun revolves around the earth, which has been extended until the 16th century. Any verses? Xasthur said: Star located in the nearest, lower part of the universe, and the moon is in the center of the universe. We're near the sky decorated decoration stars. (Quran 37:6) ...the verse clearly doesn't say that...seriously man, "Indeed, We have adorned the nearest heaven with an adornment of stars" http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=37&verse=6&to=10¬e=5&nto=7 Xasthur said: The Hawaiian Islands are on the opposite side of the Earth from Mecca. Because the Earth is spherical, it is not possible to bow toward Mecca, when you're in Hawaii, but the author of the Qur'an sure that the Earth is flat. And no matter where you came, turning their face towards the Sacred Mosque, because it is - the truth from your Lord (Quran 2:149) The Quran doesn't say the Earth is flat in any chapter (read above), also, get a better translations for your verses, the verse says: "So from wherever you go out [for prayer, O Muhammad] turn your face toward al- Masjid al-Haram, and indeed, it is the truth from your Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what you do." Xasthur said: All animals live communities From zoology known that some animals and creatures, such as jaguars, leopards and spiders are solitary lifestyle. No animal on earth and the birds flying on the wings, which would not be communities like you. (Quran 6:38) "And there is no creature on [or within] the earth or bird that flies with its wings except [that they are] communities like you. We have not neglected in the Register a thing. Then unto their Lord they will be gathered." I wonder then how Jagurs and spider come to the world, if they aren't communities like us, oh wait magic. Xasthur said: However, throughout the Middle Ages "ancient science" ( which included , inter alia, mathematics and astronomy ) have been the subject of criticism from the orthodox Islamic theologians , as they supposed could distract people from the study of religion . Thus, the most famous theologian , Muhammad al-Ghazali (1058-1111) argued that the accuracy and reliability of mathematical proofs can lead malosveduschego person to believe that religion is based on the basis of less reliable than science. Didn't understand what you're trying to say, sorry. Xasthur said: In addition, knowledge of nature implies searches causal relationships between the phenomena of nature , but many Muslim scholars believed that such a relationship can not exist , because the world exists solely due to the omnipotence of God. Thus, al-Ghazali stated: " In our opinion , the relationship between what is usually represented by a cause and a consequence of that is usually presented is not necessary ... Their relationship occurs because of predestination of God , who created them side by side, and not because of the necessity of their own nature . On the contrary, in the power of divine power to create satiety without eating, cause death without decapitation , prolong life after decapitation , and this applies to all things related to" Indeed, this the part where "believing" comes in, that everything in God's control even the ants movements. Xasthur said: You still think that drug tales are full of scientific facts? Who is drug tales now? obviously you. |
| Smiles and laughter are always good, but never forget your Poker Face.~ |
-Zeaos said: WOW, BEST ARGUMENT EVER, 10/10 YOU SHOULD WIN AN AWARD.lupadim said: They obviously didn't knew... I can't believe this is going to become a religious debate. In first place, the universe is not expanding itself. It can be expanding itself, but that is really, just a theory. In second place, I thought Islam was creationist. And in third place, get out, this is not for religious debate I have no idea what you're talking about, first of all, if you're saying that the universe expansion is just a theory then you're not living in this era, please educate yourself first and then come argue with me. *sigh* I have many theories about the universe expansion. First of all, in what speed is it expanding itself? At the speed of light? That means the universe is NOT expanding itself. The universe is actually infinite, and what is "new" is simply things that were always there, but the light takes time to travel. Second place: A very simple law of physics is that nothing is being created, nor destroyed. The universe being expanded is a direct contradiction with this law. There are many flaws in the universe being expanded theory, and that is why I call that a theory. |
|
| Well this thread hasn't gotten very far along. lupadim said: Lupadim... while I can see where you're coming from, your knowledge of physics needs a little work.I have many theories about the universe expansion. First of all, in what speed is it expanding itself? At the speed of light? That means the universe is NOT expanding itself. The universe is actually infinite, and what is "new" is simply things that were always there, but the light takes time to travel. Second place: A very simple law of physics is that nothing is being created, nor destroyed. The universe being expanded is a direct contradiction with this law. There are many flaws in the universe being expanded theory, and that is why I call that a theory. |
Ckan said: My logic is better than "1 + 1 = universe constantly expanding itself"Well this thread hasn't gotten very far along. lupadim said: Lupadim... while I can see where you're coming from, your knowledge of physics needs a little work.I have many theories about the universe expansion. First of all, in what speed is it expanding itself? At the speed of light? That means the universe is NOT expanding itself. The universe is actually infinite, and what is "new" is simply things that were always there, but the light takes time to travel. Second place: A very simple law of physics is that nothing is being created, nor destroyed. The universe being expanded is a direct contradiction with this law. There are many flaws in the universe being expanded theory, and that is why I call that a theory. |
|
-Zeaos said: Read above. I read. Still nothing. Heavens may means lands that under sky and it says about conquering other countries. -Zeaos said: Any verses? And the sun runs to the seat of his. This is the establishment of the Glorious, the Wise! (Quran 36:38) The moon follows the sun and together they orbit the Earth. By the sun and its brilliance, and the month when he followed (Quran 91:1-2) The sun must not catch up moon and night outstrip the day, and each floating on the vault. (Quran 36:40) He - the one who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. All float on the vault. (Quran 21:33) -Zeaos said: ...the verse clearly doesn't say that...seriously man At first you was like "Heavens==universe ahahah" but then "...the verse clearly doesn't say that...seriously man" You should go to the hospital, dude. -Zeaos said: The Quran doesn't say the Earth is flat in any chapter (read above), also, get a better translations for your verses, the verse says: "So from wherever you go out [for prayer, O Muhammad] turn your face toward al- Masjid al-Haram, and indeed, it is the truth from your Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what you do." Same. What you gonna do on Hawaii? Looking at your feet? -Zeaos said: "And there is no creature on [or within] the earth or bird that flies with its wings except [that they are] communities like you. We have not neglected in the Register a thing. Then unto their Lord they will be gathered." I wonder then how Jagurs and spider come to the world, if they aren't communities like us, oh wait magic. Not come to the world, but live in. Read better, muslim. -Zeaos said: Indeed, this the part where "believing" comes in, that everything in God's control even the ants movements. Believing!=knowledge. If you have proofs it called "knowledge". You have not any proofs, but subjective vision of medieval book of tales about some god. |
| Titan of 20+ virgins club. |
lupadim said: WOW, BEST ARGUMENT EVER, 10/10 YOU SHOULD WIN AN AWARD. *sigh* I have many theories about the universe expansion. First of all, in what speed is it expanding itself? At the speed of light? That means the universe is NOT expanding itself. The universe is actually infinite, and what is "new" is simply things that were always there, but the light takes time to travel. Second place: A very simple law of physics is that nothing is being created, nor destroyed. The universe being expanded is a direct contradiction with this law. There are many flaws in the universe being expanded theory, and that is why I call that a theory. My god |
-Zeaos said: Aincrad2013 said: I'll just post one link from a 12 year old website, and I want YOU to judge how Islam slowed down science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History. I don't see anything relevant to what I said, just a side note, most of the geeks theory were completely wrong, for instance, they believed that light comes from our eyes. The point I'm making is to see if religion slowed down science, you should be looking at History, not come up with a verse that vaguely mentions a scientific theory. Aincrad2013 said: See the problem with these passages is that the words are vague and has multiple meanings, which people use to justify the view they like by choosing the definition appropriate to the situation. Most people fail to view the context of the passage. See the following verse: -Zeaos said: Ha, it's not vague, since it's TRANSLATED from ARABIC to ENGLISH, and seriously we use the appropriate definition to justify ourselves, you must be stupid my dear friend. Anyway here is a link for several definitions : http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/51/47/ Are you claiming the Arabic interpretation of the word hasn't changed in the past 1400 years? If so why didn't the Muslims come up with the theory that the universe was expanding since it was CLEARLY (antonym of vague) written in their holy book? Aincrad2013 said: "And the earth We have spread out, and excellent is the preparer. (Qur'an, 51:48)" Mind explaining how the Earth is spread, since it's practically a sphere? -Zeaos said: Yes, sure, it's pretty simple, look at your room's floow from a distance 10-20m, is it sphere? no it's flat, if it's sphere, you either have eyes problems, or don't know the difference between flat and sphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth What a mighty flat planet we live in eh? My point is that by looking at the context, if heavens is supposed to mean the universe, then the earth in the following passage is supposed to mean the planet Earth. Which is practically spherical. Aincrad2013 said: Also, the following translations say YUSUFALI: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace. PICKTHAL: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof). SHAKIR: And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample. It seems the expansion interpretation was not noticed until after the expansion theory became well known. This kind of thing was what I hated most from religion class... -Zeaos said: I don't see your point? again it's translated from Arabic to English. I WROTE my point. It seems the expansion interpretation was not noticed until after the expansion theory became well known. And I'll say this again: Are you claiming the Arabic interpretation of the word hasn't changed in the past 1400 years? If so why didn't the Muslims come up with the theory that the universe was expanding since it was CLEARLY (antonym of vague) written in their holy book? |
| thats not true, because many countries didnt had churches or religion. but in reality what happens, when country too long is run by the bible belief it becomes savaged and uncivillized with poor prosperity and no future. for example, before charles darwin book, the survival of the fittest. people morals stayed at higher standard, that everyone was equal under god, people could care less about but after the the survival of the fittest book did publish it gave birth to the new ideology the ideology of power and imperialism, meaning the person who is stronger, has natural human right to control others. thats how european countries where able to invade africa, which before wasent in their interests. |
| It's hindering science because it's teaching children to believe in things that aren't grounded in science or reality. It's more than that though, it's discouraging them from figuring things out based on science/fact. Faith does away with this by teaching people to "just believe" rather than develop a scientific mind to "figure out how things really happened and the exact scientific reasoning behind them so that it can either be replicated or built upon for further use." |
Fui said: It's hindering science because it's teaching children to believe in things that aren't grounded in science or reality. It's more than that though, it's discouraging them from figuring things out based on science/fact. Faith does away with this by teaching people to "just believe" rather than develop a scientific mind to "figure out how things really happened and the exact scientific reasoning behind them so that it can either be replicated or built upon for further use." agreed "Faith is believing in something you know ain't true" - Mark Twain |
| my avatar is the bus driver from Rosario + Vampire |
| To answer OP, Yes it has. Faith: 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Just by definition it is hindering science. Believing in something just because you believe it, or trying to figure it out by observing and testing. And with that I am the fuck out of this thread....it already looks like a shit storm. |
 |
Fui said: Faith does away with this by teaching people to "just believe" rather than develop a scientific mind to "figure out how things really happened and the exact scientific reasoning behind them so that it can either be replicated or built upon for further use." There is absolutely no mainstream Christian denomination that teaches anything even close to that. |
| Let's go bowling. |
StopDropAndBowl said: Fui said: Faith does away with this by teaching people to "just believe" rather than develop a scientific mind to "figure out how things really happened and the exact scientific reasoning behind them so that it can either be replicated or built upon for further use." There is absolutely no mainstream Christian denomination that teaches anything even close to that. Faith is defined as: faith fāTH/ noun noun: faith 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. "this restores one's faith in politicians" synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More optimism, hopefulness, hope "he justified his boss's faith in him" antonyms: mistrust 2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Since we're talking about religion, it would be the second definition. I don't know how else you want to word "based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." Edit: Ah, unmemorable_hero quoted this same definition 2 posts ago. |
FuiDec 5, 2013 10:22 PM
Fui said: Since we're talking about religion, it would be the second definition. I don't know how else you want to word "based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." And since the question of whether God exists is not and never will be scientific or really have anything to do with science, I wonder how you come to the conclusion that having faith precludes thinking about scientific matters scientifically? There is absolutely no mainstream Christian denomination that encourages it's practitioners to "just believe" scientific theories rather than applying the scientific method. Roger Bacon was a devout Christian and a Franciscan friar, and he is only one of thousands of examples of devoutly Christian scientists. Faith does not preclude scientific or rational thinking. |
| Let's go bowling. |
StopDropAndBowl said: Fui said: Since we're talking about religion, it would be the second definition. I don't know how else you want to word "based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." And since the question of whether God exists is not and never will be scientific or really have anything to do with science, I wonder how you come to the conclusion that having faith precludes thinking about scientific matters scientifically? There is absolutely no mainstream Christian denomination that encourages it's practitioners to "just believe" scientific theories rather than applying the scientific method. Roger Bacon was a devout Christian and a Franciscan friar, and he is only one of thousands of examples of devoutly Christian scientists. Faith does not preclude scientific or rational thinking. It obviously does not. However, you're not looking at the train of thought involved in rationalizing with religion vs finding a real solution. The human brain begins to figure things out/become more intelligent when it recognizes the importance of the scientific method. Simply being taught to believe in fiction rather than being taught fact (which have true, logical explanations behind each phenomena) can train the brain differently. For example: Religion: I would like to thank God for saving my aunt! Non-religious: I would like to thank the doctors for saving my aunt! The latter obviously recognizes credit where it's due, and people are more aware of what's actually important/relevant to our society vs placing emphasis on God. The result? In the former situation, society places further importance on God and (will more likely spend resources on it). The latter results in recognition of science and medical technologies as a means for medical advancement. This is just a minor example, but ultimately it comes down to the difference of being taught truth vs fiction. As for myself, I have no personal agenda either way, and believe the ends justify the means. If people are happier and the world is better off believing in God, then it is the superior choice IMO, regardless of the overall intelligence of the species. |
| The thing that bugs me most about this thread is Lupadim saying "THE religion". |
 |
faith fāTH/ noun noun: faith 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. "this restores one's faith in politicians" synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More optimism, hopefulness, hope "he justified his boss's faith in him" antonyms: mistrust 2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. This definition is bollocks, belief in God is proof itself that he exists. |
Fui said: Let's go deeper:Religion: I would like to thank God for saving my aunt! Non-religious: I would like to thank the doctors for saving my aunt! Religion if aunt lives: I would like to thank God for saving my aunt! Religion if aunt dies: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will depart. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised.” (Job 1:21) Non-religious if aunt lives: Oh, I would like to thank the doctors for saving my aunt! Non-religious if aunt dies: CURSE GOD, IS THAT THE GOD EVERYONE BELIEVES? GOD KILLED MY AUNT, AND YOU PEOPLE STILL SAY HE IS MERCY AND BLABLABLA |
|
| The difference is the science can proof why the aunt died or not, religion can just say it was gods doing without any sort of evidence. |
 |
moriandrio said: I don't know if people like you are really telling the truth (you truly believe what you are saying) or if you are just trying to make fun of religion. In Christianism (and probably any other religion), God is omnipresent and omniscient, which means he knows everything that is happening, and the bible says not even a leaf may fall from a tree if God doesn't allows so. In other words, yes, the aunt died because God allowed (and planned) that to happen, but what is the problem with that? The religion is not explaining the cause of death, it is simply explaining why it happening.The difference is the science can proof why the aunt died or not, religion can just say it was gods doing without any sort of evidence. What the science is going to do is explain the cause, but can science really explain why the aunt died? Why it had to be like that? Explaining something as academic as human anatomy is so easy, so please, don't try to compare something as superficial as biology with something as deep as religion/philosophy/thatkindofthing |
|
| yes people that refuse life saving medication/ vaccines for their children slow down science because Jesus will heal them *rolls eyes* Then some how when your child contracts Polio, it is some how God's will. |
zzzeallyDec 6, 2013 2:25 AM
Fui said: It obviously does not. However, you're not looking at the train of thought involved in rationalizing with religion vs finding a real solution. The human brain begins to figure things out/become more intelligent when it recognizes the importance of the scientific method. Simply being taught to believe in fiction rather than being taught fact (which have true, logical explanations behind each phenomena) can train the brain differently. Is there any psychological evidence for this or is this just some conclusion you've decided to come to? Also, you're begging the question here. When was it determined that religion was false? The latter obviously recognizes credit where it's due, and people are more aware of what's actually important/relevant to our society vs placing emphasis on God. Still begging the question. And arguing a strawman. No mainstream Christian denomination would ever teach that you should not thank the doctors for their service. This is just a minor example, but ultimately it comes down to the difference of being taught truth vs fiction. So is this all just you begging the question and showing a complete lack of understanding in mainstream Christian thought, or is there something valuable here? |
| Let's go bowling. |
StopDropAndBowl said: Fui said: It obviously does not. However, you're not looking at the train of thought involved in rationalizing with religion vs finding a real solution. The human brain begins to figure things out/become more intelligent when it recognizes the importance of the scientific method. Simply being taught to believe in fiction rather than being taught fact (which have true, logical explanations behind each phenomena) can train the brain differently. Is there any psychological evidence for this or is this just some conclusion you've decided to come to? Also, you're begging the question here. When was it determined that religion was false? The latter obviously recognizes credit where it's due, and people are more aware of what's actually important/relevant to our society vs placing emphasis on God. Still begging the question. And arguing a strawman. No mainstream Christian denomination would ever teach that you should not thank the doctors for their service. This is just a minor example, but ultimately it comes down to the difference of being taught truth vs fiction. So is this all just you begging the question and showing a complete lack of understanding in mainstream Christian thought, or is there something valuable here? It's not a matter of thanking the right person. It's a matter of logical deduction. Recently a friend's brother got into Christianity (went to church religiously etc). He has since said many things that have pissed my friend off like saying God has given him everything over his parents (as in, God is responsible for their actions), when they work night shifts, prepare food for him to eat when they're working, etc. I'm not going to use him to portray the entire Christian community since that would be wrong, but it makes sense to me logically, based on how the religion is structured. Whether intentional or not, God and Jesus are the center of attention, and much of Christianity is dedicated to showing appreciation for them or ultimately going back to them somehow. It's only natural to conclude that they are the ultimate cause for everything. This way of thinking is inherently different from prioritizing other possibilities. In addition, if you have already concluded that God is responsible for _____, your determination to consider other possibilities/think about it further ends there, although based on how you respond will disagree with me on those last 2 points because you don't share my understanding of logic. And regarding that, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om8VC4IfeRY (Sorry, I couldn't resist since he was my professor and it was funny to see him do this based on his usual temperament. He also plays the electric guitar, which is unexpected.) Example: Religious: The Earth is the center of the universe because it says so in the Bible. (Articles arguing that geocentrism was the biblical perspective appeared in some early creation science newsletters associated with the Creation Research Society pointing to some passages in the Bible, which, when taken literally, indicate that the daily apparent motions of the Sun and the Moon are due to their actual motions around the Earth rather than due to the rotation of the Earth about its axis for example, Joshua 10:12 where the Sun and Moon are said to stop in the sky, and Psalms 93:1 where the world is described as immobile.) Non-Religious: The Earth seems to be the center of the universe based on our current understanding, but there is some evidence that suggests a heliocentric model, and therefore it requires more study. Either way, we shouldn't believe exclusively in one source. |
Fui said: Oh you are just a trollThe Earth is the center of the universe because it says so in the Bible. |
|
lupadim said: Fui said: Oh you are just a trollThe Earth is the center of the universe because it says so in the Bible. You aren't much better, as soon there are questions that you don't want to answer cause there is no answer in favor of your believings you just ignore them. But that is the is the typical behavior of pro religion ppl... |
| |
lupadim said: Fui said: Oh you are just a trollThe Earth is the center of the universe because it says so in the Bible. It's sad that it doesn't surprise me to assume that you neglected to read the context that follows. Nowhere did I state that this is the current stance that Christianity has on geo- vs heliocentrism. It was, however, a held belief at one point in the past, and obviously I'm referring to that time period. (Hence, the non-religious example). |
Fui said: But it is not biblically supported, it is just something the catholic church created.lupadim said: Fui said: Oh you are just a trollThe Earth is the center of the universe because it says so in the Bible. It's sad that it doesn't surprise me to assume that you neglected to read the context that follows. Nowhere did I state that this is the current stance that Christianity has on geo- vs heliocentrism. It was, however, a held belief at one point in the past, and obviously I'm referring to that time period. (Hence, the non-religious example). |
|
Fui said: Whether intentional or not, God and Jesus are the center of attention, and much of Christianity is dedicated to showing appreciation for them or ultimately going back to them somehow. That is definitely intentional and has absolutely nothing to do with thinking scientifically, no matter how much you want to tie the two together. Recognizing that God is the eventual "first cause" does not preclude one from thinking about cause and effect. if you have already concluded that God is responsible for _____, your determination to consider other possibilities/think about it further ends there, although based on how you respond will disagree with me on those last 2 points because you don't share my understanding of logic. Of course I will disagree because that is ridiculous. If you have determined that God is the ultimate cause of things, that doesn't mean you will not look for intermediate causes. It's not that we have a different understanding of logic (though I suspect that your understanding of logic is most likely stunted and woefully inadequate), it is that you are making leaps that have no logical or rational basis. You are taking one statement and using it as the premise for a conclusion that is neither supported nor implied by said premise. And regarding that, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om8VC4IfeRY (Sorry, I couldn't resist since he was my professor and it was funny to see him do this based on his usual temperament. He also plays the electric guitar, which is unexpected.) He seems kind of like an asshole, but okay... Religious: The Earth is the center of the universe because it says so in the Bible. Non-Religious: The Earth seems to be the center of the universe based on our current understanding, but there is some evidence that suggests a heliocentric model, and therefore it requires more study. Either way, we shouldn't believe exclusively in one source. Copernicus believed in God and was religious. Galileo believed in God and was religious. Kepler believed in God and was religious. Tycho Brahe believed in God and was religious. Copernicus first put forward his theory of a heliocentric system in the Vatican gardens, in front of the Pope, and was encouraged by all present, including the Pope, to publish his theories. Kepler was a devout Lutheran who taught in the universities. Galileo was a Catholic whose defense was, basically, that since the Bible could not err, his position just represented a different interpretation of the Bible and not a rejection of it. So, you might want to do some research about the history of the heliocentric theories before you go making claims like the one you just made. And thus is the worth of your college professors truly shown, that you are unaware even of the history of the very men who you use as the basis for your argument. Many of the greatest scientists/logicians the world has ever seen have been Christians who were attempting to understand more about God's universe, and saw their work and study as a form of worship. So yeah, you're way off base here. (lol at you claiming it was the "non-religious" who supported heliocentrism...) |
| Let's go bowling. |
More topics from this board
» My recent piano practicephiltecturophy - Jun 4 |
11 |
by philtecturophy
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» Real Life Shipping: Have you ever done it or had it happen to you?TheBlockernator - 4 hours ago |
6 |
by LoveYourSmile
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» Are you e-famous? Are you an Internet celebrity? ( 1 2 )DesuMaiden - Apr 18 |
62 |
by _Ako_
»»
7 minutes ago |
|
» why is being idealistic always considered as a taboo in this world?FruitPunchBaka - 6 hours ago |
4 |
by LoveYourSmile
»»
15 minutes ago |
|
» Favorite facts about MyAnimeList forumsLenRea - 9 hours ago |
5 |
by Zarutaku
»»
34 minutes ago |