The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
We were invaded by Christians a few months back. [Note: I say a few months back, but I actually started writing this the day after they left]. It did get me thinking though:
What is a religion? A religion is something that you follow and believe in. Religions will never explain everything, but it offers an opinion and you choose to accept it if you wish. Christians choose to believe the Universe was made in 6 days, etc... Now, our RS teacher, Mr Clarke, posed us all the question "Do you have a religion", to which most of us answered "No". I also answered "no", because I believe in science, which I don't class as a religion. However, Mr Clarke and I got chatting at one point. He asked me if I had a religion and I said no, and when he asked why I replied "Because every explanation religion makes towards the Universe, etc. can also be explained through science, and to me the earth forming over billions of years makes much more sense than it being created over 6 days". The thing is, he noticed a flaw in my argument. There are some things that science can't explain like it can't explain fully how the universe was created and it can't explain fully how life evolved from scratch and how it came to be like it is today. Religion howeverm can. So, I quite stupidly replied "Well, I believe science will explain it eventually."
Then it hit me... I BELIEVE in science. I don't understand it. Sure, there are some things I understand, but most of it is just being told "this is how it is" and accepting it because it made sense in some way. The thing is, all I know is what I've been told. The only thing that makes it different to religion in a way is that it can be "proved" and measured. The fact that millions of other scientists concuur is no matter, because millions of priests concuur. It's a very interesting concept which has, well, changed my way of thinking I suppose.
I no longer just accept things, but I BELIEVE in science as my religion, I have found science. It's a young and upcoming religion, almost fledgling, because it is far behind other religions in terms of completetion. I will even worhip it by furthering my knowledge of science and endeavouring to contribute to its teachings, so that many before me may learn science at school and in life, and hopefully think "Oh, Robin Haswell discovered that, I want to be like him and discover stuff", and so writing more chapters in the big bumber bible of science.
What is a religion? A religion is something that you follow and believe in. Religions will never explain everything, but it offers an opinion and you choose to accept it if you wish. Christians choose to believe the Universe was made in 6 days, etc... Now, our RS teacher, Mr Clarke, posed us all the question "Do you have a religion", to which most of us answered "No". I also answered "no", because I believe in science, which I don't class as a religion. However, Mr Clarke and I got chatting at one point. He asked me if I had a religion and I said no, and when he asked why I replied "Because every explanation religion makes towards the Universe, etc. can also be explained through science, and to me the earth forming over billions of years makes much more sense than it being created over 6 days". The thing is, he noticed a flaw in my argument. There are some things that science can't explain like it can't explain fully how the universe was created and it can't explain fully how life evolved from scratch and how it came to be like it is today. Religion howeverm can. So, I quite stupidly replied "Well, I believe science will explain it eventually."
Then it hit me... I BELIEVE in science. I don't understand it. Sure, there are some things I understand, but most of it is just being told "this is how it is" and accepting it because it made sense in some way. The thing is, all I know is what I've been told. The only thing that makes it different to religion in a way is that it can be "proved" and measured. The fact that millions of other scientists concuur is no matter, because millions of priests concuur. It's a very interesting concept which has, well, changed my way of thinking I suppose.
I no longer just accept things, but I BELIEVE in science as my religion, I have found science. It's a young and upcoming religion, almost fledgling, because it is far behind other religions in terms of completetion. I will even worhip it by furthering my knowledge of science and endeavouring to contribute to its teachings, so that many before me may learn science at school and in life, and hopefully think "Oh, Robin Haswell discovered that, I want to be like him and discover stuff", and so writing more chapters in the big bumber bible of science.
Page:
V.V.V.V.V. wrote:
> Mr. Nice Guy wrote:
I ain't
> a religios person. I believe in science.
> Science is the reason we live past 30
> years old. Science is the reason we
> can cure disease. Science if the reason
> behind new inventions. Science
> is God. A bold statement, but perhaps true. It
> gives hope. It can cure
> people. It can reach out to you. Take you places,
> you'd never thought
> were possible.
Science is also the reason why 100,000s of people where
> obliterated in Hiroshima.
And religion has been (and still is) the cause for wars that kill millions. Wars over some 'holy land' that they believe they have been promised by God. There is a good and bad side to both science and religion, both can help people, but both can equally harm people.
> Mr. Nice Guy wrote:
I ain't
> a religios person. I believe in science.
> Science is the reason we live past 30
> years old. Science is the reason we
> can cure disease. Science if the reason
> behind new inventions. Science
> is God. A bold statement, but perhaps true. It
> gives hope. It can cure
> people. It can reach out to you. Take you places,
> you'd never thought
> were possible.
Science is also the reason why 100,000s of people where
> obliterated in Hiroshima.
And religion has been (and still is) the cause for wars that kill millions. Wars over some 'holy land' that they believe they have been promised by God. There is a good and bad side to both science and religion, both can help people, but both can equally harm people.
Actually, I can't even remember what my original point was now.
Ah well, Nintendo suck
Ah well, Nintendo suck
MoJoJoJo wrote:
No, you're
> talking about DETAILS of the religions, something you don't learn in Sociology,
> you learn them in RS/RE
---
Ummm, no I'm not.
I'm talking about the manner in which their advocacy of Original Sin affects their behavioural responses in society, and the wider implications of Christians utlising a passive involvement, rather than the direct action of Catholics that have that belief system.
I'm looking at this from a sociological standpoint, trying to discuss the effects of such a principle and whether it is better or worse than the Christian doctrine and how that resonates within society.
No, you're
> talking about DETAILS of the religions, something you don't learn in Sociology,
> you learn them in RS/RE
---
Ummm, no I'm not.
I'm talking about the manner in which their advocacy of Original Sin affects their behavioural responses in society, and the wider implications of Christians utlising a passive involvement, rather than the direct action of Catholics that have that belief system.
I'm looking at this from a sociological standpoint, trying to discuss the effects of such a principle and whether it is better or worse than the Christian doctrine and how that resonates within society.
Goatboy wrote:
> MoJoJoJo wrote:
No, that would be LEARNING
> religion, not learning
> religion from a SOCILOGICAL view
--
No, I said the "notion" of
> Original Sin.
By that I mean the way that the belief affects their outlook on
> life and how it alters their behaviour in a "socilogical"
> manner.
For instance, Christians believe "do unto others"
> and,hopefully, treat people with a modicum of decency.
However, the original
> sin idea, dictates that a Catholic should respond to what he perceives as a sin
> in a more forceful manner, attempting to "save" that person, their
> reaction and behaviour alters in a "socilogical" situation.
----------------
No, you're talking about DETAILS of the religions, something you don't learn in Sociology, you learn them in RS/RE
> MoJoJoJo wrote:
No, that would be LEARNING
> religion, not learning
> religion from a SOCILOGICAL view
--
No, I said the "notion" of
> Original Sin.
By that I mean the way that the belief affects their outlook on
> life and how it alters their behaviour in a "socilogical"
> manner.
For instance, Christians believe "do unto others"
> and,hopefully, treat people with a modicum of decency.
However, the original
> sin idea, dictates that a Catholic should respond to what he perceives as a sin
> in a more forceful manner, attempting to "save" that person, their
> reaction and behaviour alters in a "socilogical" situation.
----------------
No, you're talking about DETAILS of the religions, something you don't learn in Sociology, you learn them in RS/RE
Mr. Nice Guy wrote:
I ain't
> a religios person. I believe in science. Science is the reason we live past 30
> years old. Science is the reason we can cure disease. Science if the reason
> behind new inventions. Science is God. A bold statement, but perhaps true. It
> gives hope. It can cure people. It can reach out to you. Take you places,
> you'd never thought were possible.
Science is also the reason why 100,000s of people where obliterated in Hiroshima.
I ain't
> a religios person. I believe in science. Science is the reason we live past 30
> years old. Science is the reason we can cure disease. Science if the reason
> behind new inventions. Science is God. A bold statement, but perhaps true. It
> gives hope. It can cure people. It can reach out to you. Take you places,
> you'd never thought were possible.
Science is also the reason why 100,000s of people where obliterated in Hiroshima.
Your Honour wrote:
You
> don't, for example, believe in the milkman.
Too right!
A man dressed in white who runs around to all the houses, dropping off glass bottles of milk before everyone wakes up? Who magically 'knows' who wants milk? That's more ridiculous than Santa!
You
> don't, for example, believe in the milkman.
Too right!
A man dressed in white who runs around to all the houses, dropping off glass bottles of milk before everyone wakes up? Who magically 'knows' who wants milk? That's more ridiculous than Santa!
MoJoJoJo wrote:
No, that would be LEARNING
> religion, not learning religion from a SOCILOGICAL view
--
No, I said the "notion" of Original Sin.
By that I mean the way that the belief affects their outlook on life and how it alters their behaviour in a "socilogical" manner.
For instance, Christians believe "do unto others" and,hopefully, treat people with a modicum of decency.
However, the original sin idea, dictates that a Catholic should respond to what he perceives as a sin in a more forceful manner, attempting to "save" that person, their reaction and behaviour alters in a "socilogical" situation.
No, that would be LEARNING
> religion, not learning religion from a SOCILOGICAL view
--
No, I said the "notion" of Original Sin.
By that I mean the way that the belief affects their outlook on life and how it alters their behaviour in a "socilogical" manner.
For instance, Christians believe "do unto others" and,hopefully, treat people with a modicum of decency.
However, the original sin idea, dictates that a Catholic should respond to what he perceives as a sin in a more forceful manner, attempting to "save" that person, their reaction and behaviour alters in a "socilogical" situation.
Very Milton, but sound.
Beware of dogma, whether it be religious dogma or scientific dogma. Symbolically speaking, it is the Devil.
If you find yourself in a place where there is never any room to swing the cat of doubt - leave, and never return. Dogma is like a dead-end: no place for discussion, argument, ideas, creativity, originality or the imagination.... It is nothing else but the vomit of flawed intelligence. Wherever you encounter it - cut its throat.
If you find yourself in a place where there is never any room to swing the cat of doubt - leave, and never return. Dogma is like a dead-end: no place for discussion, argument, ideas, creativity, originality or the imagination.... It is nothing else but the vomit of flawed intelligence. Wherever you encounter it - cut its throat.
Religions occasionally use science in an attempt to lend strength to their arguments, as has been already stated though, religion does not require numbers, only faith. This example is not however a religion, it is an attempt to describe the origin of the human species. A rather bad one at that. Science requires proof via observation to draw conclusions, I wonder where he got his proof from?
Aliens told him I suppose….
With regards to another point made, most scientists that are religious were in fact religious first, then became scientists at a later date. Shaking off your upbringing is sometimes hard to do, particularly if it has been a focal point of your life, as religion would be. Also it’s worth noting that some people working within science view it as a means to an end, a job the same as any other. When I first started working in a scientific establishment I was rather disappointed with this, but people want different things from life, not just ultimate truths.
Scientists that become religious are in most cases unable to accept that they do not/cannot make the pieces fit, and so require an alternative explanation for life, the universe and everything. Some may say that this is hypocritical at worst, more often they are disillusioned with their ability to understand. Getting degree/PhD and realising there’s a lot you don’t know can be fairly demoralising. As before, some people in science (quite a few actually) just want to get paid.
Aliens told him I suppose….
With regards to another point made, most scientists that are religious were in fact religious first, then became scientists at a later date. Shaking off your upbringing is sometimes hard to do, particularly if it has been a focal point of your life, as religion would be. Also it’s worth noting that some people working within science view it as a means to an end, a job the same as any other. When I first started working in a scientific establishment I was rather disappointed with this, but people want different things from life, not just ultimate truths.
Scientists that become religious are in most cases unable to accept that they do not/cannot make the pieces fit, and so require an alternative explanation for life, the universe and everything. Some may say that this is hypocritical at worst, more often they are disillusioned with their ability to understand. Getting degree/PhD and realising there’s a lot you don’t know can be fairly demoralising. As before, some people in science (quite a few actually) just want to get paid.
Page: