Religion = Child; Science = Adult

[Ramaraksha]

Let's suppose that you came down on christmas day and saw in all the bunch of presents one that you did not buy. you ask your wife and she says no - it is a mystery to you. To your child? Not so much - Santa bought those presents - no mystery here
Then you ask your mom or other and they say yes, they had bought that present - mystery solved!

That is basically the difference between Religious ideas of the world and Science. "The Genie did it" says a child, religious ideas are no better.

You have heard of Occam's razor - well let's use Ramaraksha's Razor - all religions are earth-bound ideas - just ideas of people just like you and me living a long time ago - simple explanations that's all. The weak and the coward are drawn to tales of magic - get things done just by saying Abracadabra - why work hard, sacrifice and do things when we can just snap our fingers or twitch our noses and get things done? That is why religious tales are full of magic and miracles

Christianity and Islam, especially, are Master/Slave religions - King/Subject religions - born when Kings ruled. Naturally they created the heavens using the life they lived - they created a King-like God who ruled the heavens, rewarding(Heaven) his loyal subjects(believers) and punishing the rest(hell)
Simple ideas that sadly are the dominant ones to this day

When it comes to religion we have not evolved at all! Zero!

We may live in democracies, talk about freedom of speech and expression but when it comes to religions - Communist ideas rule! "our way is the only way, if you disagree, you get hell"

Amazing to see people who would be insulted in getting a job that is not earned confidently say that Heaven cannot be earned, you can only beg for it, only if you belong to the "right" religion. God is no better than a tin-pot dictator rewarding his cronies and punishing those who speak up!
Yes, these are the ideas of the 21st century!

Sometimes i think i am living in the twilight zone when it comes to religion

 

[Shadowy Man]

Let's suppose that you came down on christmas day and saw in all the bunch of presents one that you did not buy. you ask your wife and she says no - it is a mystery to you. To your child? Not so much - Santa bought those presents - no mystery here
Then you ask your mom or other and they say yes, they had bought that present - mystery solved!

Actually, if the parents didn't tell the child that Santa brought them in the first place the child wouldn't believe that. If you've spent much time around children in the toddler and up range you'll see that they're very naturally observant and inquisitive. They reach out to their environment and through interaction/experimentation learn about things like cause and effect.

Without religious ideas being given to children and upheld by the parents' authority I think they'd be scientifically minded from the very start.

 

[fast]

No Santa? You people are adults!

Children grow out of their phase and learn as adults there is no Santa; however, when adults mature out of their phase and reach the 3rd and final stage, they come full circle and learn there was a Santa all along. Then, ...

 

[Ramaraksha]

No Santa? You people are adults!

Children grow out of their phase and learn as adults there is no Santa; however, when adults mature out of their phase and reach the 3rd and final stage, they come full circle and learn there was a Santa all along. Then, ...

The reason is that it is tempting - to see and read grown adults talk about the easy living that they will get in Heaven - i feel like bashing my head against the wall sometimes. These very same people if told to go to the next county some guy is giving away millions will laugh at me and ask me if i think they are stupid yet religions happily preach the same exact thing and millions of highly educated with the best of minds are happy to believe

What is sad to see if that we have not evolved from our basic desires - 72 virgins in heaven, the easy living of no problems in heaven - same old pleasures of the flesh and not much else

Not one theist asks what do we DO in Heaven? How do we live? Is everything free? We just mooch off this rich guy? No shame at all?
If we die at 80, do we stay 80? old and bent? or do we get shiny new bodies?
What about our loved ones down on earth? If say a soldier dies while fighting for his country, he doesn't worry any more about his country? Overrun, women raped, children killed - not his problem anymore? ooh, cake in heaven's breakroom?

The sad thing is that such questions have never been asked! Never! Not even by Atheists! That is one sad statement

 

[Keith&Co.]

3rd and final stage, ... Then, ...

Final stage and Then? What's the 'then' that comes after the mislabeled 'final' stage?

Like the fifth book in the increasingly misnamed trilogy?

 

[fast]

3rd and final stage, ... Then, ...

Final stage and Then? What's the 'then' that comes after the mislabeled 'final' stage?

Like the fifth book in the increasingly misnamed trilogy?

Oh come on, you know I was funnin' 'round.

 

[Learner]

Let's suppose that you came down on christmas day and saw in all the bunch of presents one that you did not buy. you ask your wife and she says no - it is a mystery to you. To your child? Not so much - Santa bought those presents - no mystery here
Then you ask your mom or other and they say yes, they had bought that present - mystery solved!

That is basically the difference between Religious ideas of the world and Science. "The Genie did it" says a child, religious ideas are no better.

Sure, no doubt part of the discription above fits many religions of the world - like your example ; the santa mystery is solved simply by "asking mom". All we have to do then is "ask science" about the impossibility of the biblical belief. You know ... that overwhelming substance for easy-to-see realization ... to put to bed religion once and for all.

You have heard of Occam's razor - well let's use Ramaraksha's Razor - all religions are earth-bound ideas - just ideas of people just like you and me living a long time ago - simple explanations that's all. The weak and the coward are drawn to tales of magic - get things done just by saying Abracadabra - why work hard, sacrifice and do things when we can just snap our fingers or twitch our noses and get things done? That is why religious tales are full of magic and miracles

Occams razor is not always applicable all the time. "Simple anwsers" we just don't have, like trying to understand the universe. Your razor applied however maybe a little simplistic as an answer. "The weak and the coward" hmm interesting.

Christianity and Islam, especially, are Master/Slave religions - King/Subject religions - born when Kings ruled. Naturally they created the heavens using the life they lived - they created a King-like God who ruled the heavens, rewarding(Heaven) his loyal subjects(believers) and punishing the rest(hell)
Simple ideas that sadly are the dominant ones to this day

When it comes to religion we have not evolved at all! Zero!

To some extent I'd agree in terms of there being distortions , selfish wealth gain and false preaching. "Charity and the ethics" of feeding and clothing the poor,healing the sick etc, started practically from the beginning of the certain religions and continues today.

We may live in democracies, talk about freedom of speech and expression but when it comes to religions - Communist ideas rule! "our way is the only way, if you disagree, you get hell"

Amazing to see people who would be insulted in getting a job that is not earned confidently say that Heaven cannot be earned, you can only beg for it, only if you belong to the "right" religion. God is no better than a tin-pot dictator rewarding his cronies and punishing those who speak up!
Yes, these are the ideas of the 21st century!

Religion from the Christian perspective is for those who want it.. a free will thing .. "those who have ears to listen" .. willingly. It is NOT at all supposed to be "forced" on individuals obviously which I know does happen. Besides, If there was no more religion.. would communism - oddly a non religious idea - then cease to exist?

 

[Ramaraksha]

Never heard of christians using threats of hell? "jesus is the only way, if you don't listen to us and convert, you get hell"?
Don't tell me you have not heard them using the above words, you did but you choose not to speak up
Would any parent divide Her own children? Would any father rape his own daughter?
But a Master will - a master/king will reward his loyal supporters and punish the rest
That's what makes these Master/Slave religions
As soon as they divide - "heaven only if you convert" - they are making God a Master and in turn lower themselves down to slaves

Ramaraksha's Razor - Down-to-earth explanations for religious ideas or for all fantastic ideas of magic and miracle

As for Communism - all i am saying is that they share the same ideas - the Terminology is the same - the same lack of freedoms, the same threats if you think otherwise. "Read only our book, only our God will get you heaven. All other books are evil, all other religions are evil, do not fall for them, Satan will tempt you with them, do not listen to them or read their books" - words that would make the north korean dictator proud
Ramaraksha's Razor - see?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Occams razor is not always applicable all the time. "Simple anwsers" we just don't have, like trying to understand the universe. Your razor applied however maybe a little simplistic as an answer. "The weak and the coward" hmm interesting.

Um, you DID notice that he brought up Occam's Razor only as a pretext to introducing Ram's Razor, right? So an objection to Occam's Razor isn't really anywhere near useful.
Especially since you don't appear to know how Occam's Razor is used. It doesn't say 'Simple answers.'
It says 'choose the theory with the fewest assumptions.'
So, like, don't add things to the theory that aren't necessary. Don't build your theory on too many unproven assumptions. It becomes a less and less useful theory.

It's ALWAYS applicable.

 

[Ramaraksha]

Sorry didn't realize i was committing a crime - wow just wow
What a dastardly thing to do
I drew up the difference between the two - people are familiar with Occam's Razor and I thought using it would help people understand my Razor - sheesh

 

[ideologyhunter]

Paraphrasing two thoughts I read recently -- probably in Freethought Today, and by whom I can't remember:
1) Religion is enduring proof of the weirdness of humanity.
2) Consider humans: they invent a deity and then live in fear of it.

 

[remez]

Let's suppose that you came down on christmas day and saw in all the bunch of presents one that you did not buy. you ask your wife and she says no - it is a mystery to you. To your child? Not so much - Santa bought those presents - no mystery here
Then you ask your mom or other and they say yes, they had bought that present - mystery solved!

That is basically the difference between Religious ideas of the world and Science. "The Genie did it" says a child, religious ideas are no better.

You have heard of Occam's razor - well let's use Ramaraksha's Razor - all religions are earth-bound ideas - just ideas of people just like you and me living a long time ago - simple explanations that's all. The weak and the coward are drawn to tales of magic - get things done just by saying Abracadabra - why work hard, sacrifice and do things when we can just snap our fingers or twitch our noses and get things done? That is why religious tales are full of magic and miracles

Christianity and Islam, especially, are Master/Slave religions - King/Subject religions - born when Kings ruled. Naturally they created the heavens using the life they lived - they created a King-like God who ruled the heavens, rewarding(Heaven) his loyal subjects(believers) and punishing the rest(hell)
Simple ideas that sadly are the dominant ones to this day

When it comes to religion we have not evolved at all! Zero!

We may live in democracies, talk about freedom of speech and expression but when it comes to religions - Communist ideas rule! "our way is the only way, if you disagree, you get hell"

Amazing to see people who would be insulted in getting a job that is not earned confidently say that Heaven cannot be earned, you can only beg for it, only if you belong to the "right" religion. God is no better than a tin-pot dictator rewarding his cronies and punishing those who speak up!
Yes, these are the ideas of the 21st century!

Sometimes i think i am living in the twilight zone when it comes to religion

Just for beginners, this is a Genetic Fallacy.
Simple enough?

 

[remez]

Let's suppose that you came down on christmas day and saw in all the bunch of presents one that you did not buy. you ask your wife and she says no - it is a mystery to you. To your child? Not so much - Santa bought those presents - no mystery here
Then you ask your mom or other and they say yes, they had bought that present - mystery solved!

Actually, if the parents didn't tell the child that Santa brought them in the first place the child wouldn't believe that. If you've spent much time around children in the toddler and up range you'll see that they're very naturally observant and inquisitive. They reach out to their environment and through interaction/experimentation learn about things like cause and effect.

Without religious ideas being given to children and upheld by the parents' authority I think they'd be scientifically minded from the very start.

Are you asserting that theism and science are incompatible?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Are you asserting that theism and science are incompatible?

Asserting? I'd say it's more like 'observing.'

The Faithful can accept many different aspects and applications of scientific theory, as long as those don't contradict their religious dogma.
Then they have to make a choice.
They can hew to the dogma and declare the inconvenient science to be wrong, producing things like the Flat Earth Society, or they can declare the inconvenient dogma to be 'metaphor' or 'poetic' or a translation error and hew to the science, pretending that's what their religion has always taught.

 

[remez]

Are you asserting that theism and science are incompatible?

Asserting? I'd say it's more like 'observing.'

The Faithful can accept many different aspects and applications of scientific theory, as long as those don't contradict their religious dogma.
Then they have to make a choice.
They can hew to the dogma and declare the inconvenient science to be wrong, producing things like the Flat Earth Society, or they can declare the inconvenient dogma to be 'metaphor' or 'poetic' or a translation error and hew to the science, pretending that's what their religion has always taught.

Left the whole quote above for context. Specifically……….

Asserting? I'd say it's more like 'observing.'

The Faithful can accept many different aspects and applications of scientific theory,

I observe that Christian Theism (specifically old earth)agrees with the vast majority of science.

as long as those don't contradict their religious dogma.

Does your worldview agree 100%?

Then they have to make a choice.

We all do.

They can hew to the dogma and declare the inconvenient science to be wrong, producing things like the Flat Earth Society,

Everybody has the right to be irrational, but is it rational to hold up the fringe as representative of a larger worldview?

or they can declare the inconvenient dogma to be 'metaphor' or 'poetic' or a translation error and hew to the science, pretending that's what their religion has always taught.

For example?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I observe that Christian Theism (specifically old earth)agrees with the vast majority of science.

The 'majority' of science, huh?
So what are the quibbles and what are they based upon?

but is it rational to hold up the fringe as representative of a larger worldview?

Galieo was not tried by the 'fringe.'

 

[remez]

The 'majority' of science, huh?
So what are the quibbles and what are they based upon?

???
I’m the one observing that theism accepts the vast majority of science.
You’re the one who stating an observed difference …… so make your case.

but is it rational to hold up the fringe as representative of a larger worldview?

Galieo was not tried by the 'fringe.'

Again ?????
You were the one citing flat earthers.
"Why" is a mystery, because neither Galileo nor Theism was flat earth.
Are you mixing up Geocentrism with flat earthers?
Are you also forgetting Galileo was in both the camps of theism and science?

 

[Keith&Co.]

???
I’m the one observing that theism accepts the vast majority of science.
You’re the one who stating an observed difference …… so make your case.

You offered a qualifier. I suspect the qualifier actually proves my point.
So, why do you point out that your flavor of theism accepts 'the majority' of science? Why don't you accept it all?
What don't you accept?
What keeps you from accepting it?

but is it rational to hold up the fringe as representative of a larger worldview?

Galieo was not tried by the 'fringe.'

Again ?????
You were the one citing flat earthers.

I pointed to them as an example. Not an exclusive list.

"Why" is a mystery, because neither Galileo nor Theism was flat earth.

'Why' is not a mystery. You want to pretend that the whole of my position is based upon fringe groups' position. That's in error. I just didn't list every single thing i know of in the list of examples.

Are you mixing up Geocentrism with flat earthers?

Nope. But if your argument is that only fringe groups reject 'the vast majority' of science, you've got to explain Galileo, then.

Are you also forgetting Galileo was in both the camps of theism and science?

Science didn't reject Galileo because of his theism.
Theists rejected Galileo's science because of their religion.

Plenty of scientists have a religious worldview. It's just better if they don't take their gods to work with them. Certainly if they don't publish.
Because their religion and their work are not compatible...

 

[remez]

'Why' is not a mystery. You want to pretend that the whole of my position is based upon fringe groups' position. That's in error. I just didn't list every single thing i know of in the list of examples.

Wrong. You cited the fringe group of flat earthers to support your position of theistic conflict with science. I challenged your rationality for offering something so fringe to represent theism. Your fringe group added nothing to your support because it wasn’t a theistic concept. You then DIRECTLY replied with Galileo wasn’t fringe. I would never assert that Galileo was fringe, but weren’t talking about Galileo. We were talking about flat earthers. You are the one pretending you didn’t conflate Geocentrism and flat earthers.

Are you also forgetting Galileo was in both the camps of theism and science?

Science didn't reject Galileo because of his theism.
Theists rejected Galileo's science because of their religion.

So there were some wrong people in both camps. But to my point there were theists that agreed with Galileo’s compatible science and theism. Remember Shadowy Man seemed to be asserting that theism and science were incompatible. That is what I was questioning. You felt compelled to make the case for that asserted “observation”. I’m still waiting.

Plenty of scientists have a religious worldview. It's just better if they don't take their gods to work with them.

I would agree with you that scientists are philosophically limited to only natural causes. So when I operate as a scientist I must operate within those philosophical limits. I understand and advocate that, but how does that make it incompatible with my theism? The philosophical limits of theism are not as narrow as science but that does not mean theists reject science. It feels like you are saying that even numbers are incompatible with real numbers. I value science as a powerful subset of my worldview.

Because their religion and their work are not compatible...

In the case of a scientist that has a theistic worldview I would reason that his science and theism are compatible right up to the philosophical limit of his science, but that wouldn’t hinder the “theistic side” of him from reasoning further to a cause of nature itself. Just because science is philosophically limited in its scope does not make it incompatible with theism.

Here I would offer Galileo as evidence that they are compatible. Galileo’s science and theism were correct with regards to his theory of heliocentrism. His compatible science and theism eventually corrected both camps.

So now……………..Make your case that they are not compatible.

 

[Juma]

Wrong. You cited the fringe group of flat earthers to support your position of theistic conflict with science. I challenged your rationality for offering something so fringe to represent theism. Your fringe group added nothing to your support because it wasn’t a theistic concept. You then DIRECTLY replied with Galileo wasn’t fringe. I would never assert that Galileo was fringe, but weren’t talking about Galileo. We were talking about flat earthers. You are the one pretending you didn’t conflate Geocentrism and flat earthers.

Are you also forgetting Galileo was in both the camps of theism and science?

Science didn't reject Galileo because of his theism.
Theists rejected Galileo's science because of their religion.

So there were some wrong people in both camps. But to my point there were theists that agreed with Galileo’s compatible science and theism. Remember Shadowy Man seemed to be asserting that theism and science were incompatible. That is what I was questioning. You felt compelled to make the case for that asserted “observation”. I’m still waiting.

Plenty of scientists have a religious worldview. It's just better if they don't take their gods to work with them.

I would agree with you that scientists are philosophically limited to only natural causes. So when I operate as a scientist I must operate within those philosophical limits. I understand and advocate that, but how does that make it incompatible with my theism? The philosophical limits of theism are not as narrow as science but that does not mean theists reject science. It feels like you are saying that even numbers are incompatible with real numbers. I value science as a powerful subset of my worldview.

Because their religion and their work are not compatible...

In the case of a scientist that has a theistic worldview I would reason that his science and theism are compatible right up to the philosophical limit of his science, but that wouldn’t hinder the “theistic side” of him from reasoning further to a cause of nature itself. Just because science is philosophically limited in its scope does not make it incompatible with theism.

Here I would offer Galileo as evidence that they are compatible. Galileo’s science and theism were correct with regards to his theory of heliocentrism. His compatible science and theism eventually corrected both camps.

So now……………..Make your case that they are not compatible.

Difference between theists and scientist is that scientists are imited to state what actually is true whike theists can say whatever they wants.