Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Religion vs Science debate: bring it in here
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="James Snover" data-source="post: 13390933" data-attributes="member: 67454"><p>1.) We can't know why all the holy books exist. They've all changed over the millennia because they have all been written by human beings. Changes in meaning brought in by translations, personal biases, even typographical errors in printing, all by itself, ensures that no Holy book of today exists in its original form. The thing to take from them is their central message: don't murder, don't cheat on your wife, don't be a dickhead.</p><p></p><p>And all of them have had their meaning perverted at one time or another by whoever was seeking political power and used various teachings from various books as suited their needs.</p><p></p><p>2.) The idea that religion and science must be at odds is not necessarily axiomatic. Yeah, the Pope had Galileo put under house arrest for the rest of his life. They still allowed him to work and publish. And the Catholic church has a great science program. Is it perfect? Is it unbiased? Is it without its own agenda? No human endeavor meets those criteria. It is as useless to look for perfection in the human practice of religion as it to look for perfection in the human practice of the scientific method.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="James Snover, post: 13390933, member: 67454"] 1.) We can't know why all the holy books exist. They've all changed over the millennia because they have all been written by human beings. Changes in meaning brought in by translations, personal biases, even typographical errors in printing, all by itself, ensures that no Holy book of today exists in its original form. The thing to take from them is their central message: don't murder, don't cheat on your wife, don't be a dickhead. And all of them have had their meaning perverted at one time or another by whoever was seeking political power and used various teachings from various books as suited their needs. 2.) The idea that religion and science must be at odds is not necessarily axiomatic. Yeah, the Pope had Galileo put under house arrest for the rest of his life. They still allowed him to work and publish. And the Catholic church has a great science program. Is it perfect? Is it unbiased? Is it without its own agenda? No human endeavor meets those criteria. It is as useless to look for perfection in the human practice of religion as it to look for perfection in the human practice of the scientific method. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Religion vs Science debate: bring it in here
Top