Jump to content

Religious material in caches


Geognome57
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

I can never have a good discussion about science with the non religiouse types who substitute science for faith. Too much dogma gets in the way.

Whose dogma, yours or theirs? Or both?

 

If you find yourself talking to someone who claims to think scientifically, yet that person speaks dogmatically about his beliefs without leaving room for doubt and critical-yet-fair consideration of other ideas, then the person you are talking to is NOT thinking scientifically.

 

Religion tells us there are certain things one must accept on pure faith. Religion says not to question. Religion rejects uncertainty. Religion encourages dogma. Religion promotes a closed mind.

 

Science tells us to be suspicious of everything. Good science, by definition, remains wary of ALL hypotheses, even the ones which have become part of generally accepted theory. Science teaches that we must carefully and methodically question all claims. Science encourages uncertainty. Science rejects dogma. Science promotes an open mind.

 

Good science even allows for the remote yet conceivable possibility that, when it comes to explaining why the universe is here, one of the existing religions may actually have it right.

 

Each religion rejects ALL competing explanations for why the universe is here, including any explanation presented by any competing religion.

 

(As a being who seeks the Ultimate Truth and who is willing to consider ALL possibilities, no matter how non-intuitive they may sound, which system of thought do you think I respect the most?)

 

When scientists begin to talk dogmatically they are no longer being good scientists. Scientists are human and fallible, of course, which is why the good ones know to remain vigilantly critical of each other, watching for such failures.

 

When religious thinkers talk dogmatically they are simply behaving as instructed by their teachings. Religious thinkers are human and fallible, of course, which is why the careful ones know to remain vigilantly nervous about any outside, unapproved information, and to summarily shut out any competing ideas as heresy.

 

It always amuses me whenever I hear religious people accusing scientists of being dogmatic.

Link to comment
So don't lump me into a category.
Dude, you lumped yourself into the category with this post:
Nobody cares if you choose to live without Him
I made a valid point that the people who feel like they deserve to be heard, that it's their right to tell everyone else how they feel, are very often the same people that don't want to hear my view and my feeling. They'll proudly exclaim how they're a life long Catholic and how important the pope is to them, and they'll act offended whenever anyone mentions a pope joke. But when I even mention that I'm not a follower while making a point, they say things like, "Nobody cares if you choose to live without him".
I already explained exactly what I meant. If you keep cracking jokes like that then you are just making yourself look like a heal. Finally, I also said that I am interested in others beliefs. By the way, you have no idea what mine are because I've only shown you a couple of cards in the deck.
Let me get this straight: Trail Gators has, until now, been engaging in baiting, blaming, finger-pointing, and engaging rather extreme and unreasonable defensive postures, but now he (or she, whatever) seems to be suddenly changing horses in mid-stream and suggesting that Mushtang may be a healer of some kind. So, he (or she) is switching from accusing Mushtang of being an unwashed heathen, or at least a defender of unwashed heathenism, to suggesting that Mushtang may, in fact, be some kind of a religious or spiritual healer. Very odd! Am I the only one who is confused by this sudden change in posture?

There's a tract somewhere that might say, "Now when the sun was setting, all those who had anyone sick with various diseases brought them to Mushtang; and Mushtang laid his hands on every one of them and healed them."

Link to comment
Oh let the sun beat down upon my face, stars to fill my dream

I am a traveler of both time and space, to be where I have been

To sit with elders of the gentle race, this world has seldom seen

They talk of days for which they sit and wait and all will be revealed

:D

Nice poem. Now that is something I can understand. :D
That's not a "nice poem". Those are the opening lyrics to Led Zepplin's song Kashmir.

 

I believe just a few post previous you even claimed to be familiar with that song. :anibad::D:):D:D:D

Someone once told me that "Kashmir" is evidence that Led Zep is satanic. The reasoning went: Kashmir sounds like "cashmere", which comes from goats, and of course goats = devil. I'm not making this up. So, is it wrong to leave copies of "Houses of the Holy" in a cache knowing that some people might see it as pushing a religious view (never mind the naked bums all over the cover)?

WHOA! Not ten minutes after I posted this, I got in the car, and the first song to come on the radio -- after "Stinkfist" ended -- was "Kashmir"!

 

God's trying to tell me something.

Almost the exact same thing happened to me. I went to get into my car to pick up my son, and less than a minute after that my iPod started playing Kashmir.

 

Nobody was trying to tell me anything though, it played because I'd set it on a Led Zeppelin playlist. Heh.

Edited by Mushtang
Link to comment
So don't lump me into a category.

Dude, you lumped yourself into the category with this post:

Nobody cares if you choose to live without Him
I made a valid point that the people who feel like they deserve to be heard, that it's their right to tell everyone else how they feel, are very often the same people that don't want to hear my view and my feeling. They'll proudly exclaim how they're a life long Catholic and how important the pope is to them, and they'll act offended whenever anyone mentions a pope joke. But when I even mention that I'm not a follower while making a point, they say things like, "Nobody cares if you choose to live without him".
I already explained exactly what I meant. If you keep cracking jokes like that then you are just making yourself look like a heel. Finally, I also said that I am interested in others beliefs. By the way, you have no idea what mine are because I've only shown you a couple of cards in the deck.
Let me get this straight: Trail Gators has, until now, been engaging in baiting, blaming, finger-pointing, and engaging rather extreme and unreasonable defensive postures, but now he (or she, whatever) seems to be suddenly changing horses in mid-stream and suggesting that Mushtang may be a healer of some kind. So, he (or she) is switching from accusing Mushtang of being an unwashed heathen, or at least a defender of unwashed heathenism, to suggesting that Mushtang may, in fact, be some kind of a religious or spiritual healer. Very odd! Am I the only one who is confused by this sudden change in posture?
I had a typo there. I meant heel. :anibad:

Yeah, he was trying to insult me. I'm glad he was Christian enough to clear up his mistake. :) Bless you.

Link to comment
So don't lump me into a category.

Dude, you lumped yourself into the category with this post:

Nobody cares if you choose to live without Him
I made a valid point that the people who feel like they deserve to be heard, that it's their right to tell everyone else how they feel, are very often the same people that don't want to hear my view and my feeling. They'll proudly exclaim how they're a life long Catholic and how important the pope is to them, and they'll act offended whenever anyone mentions a pope joke. But when I even mention that I'm not a follower while making a point, they say things like, "Nobody cares if you choose to live without him".
I already explained exactly what I meant. If you keep cracking jokes like that then you are just making yourself look like a heel. Finally, I also said that I am interested in others beliefs. By the way, you have no idea what mine are because I've only shown you a couple of cards in the deck.
Let me get this straight: Trail Gators has, until now, been engaging in baiting, blaming, finger-pointing, and engaging rather extreme and unreasonable defensive postures, but now he (or she, whatever) seems to be suddenly changing horses in mid-stream and suggesting that Mushtang may be a healer of some kind. So, he (or she) is switching from accusing Mushtang of being an unwashed heathen, or at least a defender of unwashed heathenism, to suggesting that Mushtang may, in fact, be some kind of a religious or spiritual healer. Very odd! Am I the only one who is confused by this sudden change in posture?
I had a typo there. I meant heel. :anibad:

Yeah, he was trying to insult me. I'm glad he was Christian enough to clear up his mistake. :) Bless you.

Trying reading what I wrote: "If you keep cracking jokes like that then you are just making yourself look like a heel." So the choice is yours. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
I can never have a good discussion about science with the non religiouse types who substitute science for faith. Too much dogma gets in the way.

Whose dogma, yours or theirs? Or both?

 

If you find yourself talking to someone who claims to think scientifically, yet that person speaks dogmatically about his beliefs without leaving room for doubt and critical-yet-fair consideration of other ideas, then the person you are talking to is NOT thinking scientifically.

1. Without leaving room for doubt in your mind or his own mind cuz hey, just cuz you dont get it dont mean he is wrong!

2. "Critical-yet-fair consideration of others ideas" As you have left a fine example of :anibad:

 

Religion tells us there are certain things one must accept on pure faith. Religion says not to question. Religion rejects uncertainty. Religion encourages dogma. Religion promotes a closed mind.

Hmmmm just shows how little you know about religions. After a statement like this you have very little credibility in what you say about religion. I prefer a man of science who has enough desire to understand and educate himself with what he is talking about before talking about it :D

 

Science tells us to be suspicious of everything. Good science, by definition, remains wary of ALL hypotheses, even the ones which have become part of generally accepted theory. Science teaches that we must carefully and methodically question all claims. Science encourages uncertainty. Science rejects dogma. Science promotes an open mind.

 

Good science even allows for the remote yet conceivable possibility that, when it comes to explaining why the universe is here, one of the existing religions may actually have it right.

Do I senses sarcasm here? Ouch that hurts.

 

Each religion rejects ALL competing explanations for why the universe is here, including any explanation presented by any competing religion.

I mean really have you ever studied more than one religion? Yes they disagree on a lot but a lot are also very very similar

 

(As a being who seeks the Ultimate Truth and who is willing to consider ALL possibilities, no matter how non-intuitive they may sound, which system of thought do you think I respect the most?)

the word narcissism comes to mind here

 

When scientists begin to talk dogmatically they are no longer being good scientists. Scientists are human and fallible, of course, which is why the good ones know to remain vigilantly critical of each other, watching for such failures.

According to YOU no doubt as you are the one who wrote this. By the way, in your so ever humble opinion who are these "good ones" that you refer to? Are you talking about the scientist who discovered the laws of science? It would be interesting to see, like the founding fathers, how many of these feel that they were inspired :D

 

When religious thinkers talk dogmatically they are simply behaving as instructed by their teachings. Religious thinkers are human and fallible, of course, which is why the careful ones know to remain vigilantly nervous about any outside, unapproved information, and to summarily shut out any competing ideas as heresy.

Do you have a quote here from a religious leader or again is this coming from your scientific research that you undoubtably did?

 

It always amuses me whenever I hear religious people accusing scientists of being dogmatic.

Likewise it kills me whenever I hear scientists accuse religious people of being dogmatic. After all the religious people have come to their knowledge by a Supreme Being (who is all knowing) and just because some scientists lack the faith, which leads to knowledge, to prove it they discard it as dogmatism. Dont you think that scientist exercise a little faith in their experiments? I mean if they didnt have faith in the undiscovered why would they attempt to discover/understand it?

I hope I dont sound like I am trashing either religion or science as I see a need for both.

By the way I think it would help if you gave some more thought about what you write before you write it. I think a number of us here would have an easier time understanding you. It seems like you are going around in circles without ever saying what it is you feel. Try to step back and read your post from a 3rd person point of view, I'm sure you understand what your thinking but we dont. :D

Just to answer some of the questions I'm sure your going to reply with almost before reading the post!

Yes /no I ment/didnt mean to offend you

Yes/no I care/dont care that I offended you

Yes/no I'm trying/not trying to understand you

Yes/no I read/didnt read all your post

Yes/no to whatever else you want :)

Edited by Roadtorque
Link to comment
WHOA! Not ten minutes after I posted this, I got in the car, and the first song to come on the radio -- after "Stinkfist" ended -- was "Kashmir"!

 

God's trying to tell me something.

Almost the exact same thing happened to me. I went to get into my car to pick up my son, and less than a minute after that my iPod started playing Kashmir.

 

Nobody was trying to tell me anything though, it played because I'd set it on a Led Zeppelin playlist. Heh.

You just think you made a conscious choice when you selected that playlist.

Link to comment
Religion tells us there are certain things one must accept on pure faith. Religion says not to question. Religion rejects uncertainty. Religion encourages dogma. Religion promotes a closed mind.

Hmmmm just shows how little you know about religions. After a statement like this you have very little credibility in what you say about religion. I prefer a man of science who has enough desire to understand and educate himself with what he is talking about before talking about it :anibad:

I was raised in a Methodist church. Every Sunday involved Bible study, followed by deep discussions explaining why it is so critical to have faith and ignore the evil temptation to question the Bible, followed by a full one-hour general service of scripture, teachings, sermons and hymns – all telling me that I must accept certain things on faith.

 

That doesn't count the extra-curricular stuff on Saturday, weekend-long retreats, revivals, homework ...

 

I received more than twenty year's worth of such indoctrination. Been to many other churches since then. Is that enough credibility for you?

 

Can you tell me what I missed in all of those years of indoctrination that you think I should know?

 

How much time have you spent studying agnostic thought? Should I question your credibility as well?

 

Science tells us to be suspicious of everything. Good science, by definition, remains wary of ALL hypotheses, even the ones which have become part of generally accepted theory. Science teaches that we must carefully and methodically question all claims. Science encourages uncertainty. Science rejects dogma. Science promotes an open mind.

 

Good science even allows for the remote yet conceivable possibility that, when it comes to explaining why the universe is here, one of the existing religions may actually have it right.

Do I senses sarcasm here? Ouch that hurts.

No sarcasm intended. What good would true science be if it rejected any idea without serious consideration?

 

Each religion rejects ALL competing explanations for why the universe is here, including any explanation presented by any competing religion.

I mean really have you ever studied more than one religion? Yes they disagree on a lot but a lot are also very very similar

Please name one major faith in which the leaders and sincere believers have chosen to completely reject their own teachings about the reasons for our existence, and have adopted instead the scriptural explanation offered by a different major faith.

 

Prove me wrong. I am always prepared to learn.

 

(As a being who seeks the Ultimate Truth and who is willing to consider ALL possibilities, no matter how non-intuitive they may sound, which system of thought do you think I respect the most?)

the word narcissism comes to mind here

A lame personal attack in place of a reasoned academic argument? Man, that’s so disappointing – and just when your post was getting good ...

Link to comment

When scientists begin to talk dogmatically they are no longer being good scientists. Scientists are human and fallible, of course, which is why the good ones know to remain vigilantly critical of each other, watching for such failures.

According to YOU no doubt as you are the one who wrote this. By the way, in your so ever humle opinion who are these "good ones" that you refer to? Are you talking about the scientist who discovered the laws of science? It would be interesting to see, like the founding fathers, how many of these feel that they were inspired :anibad:

Which "scientist who discovered the laws of science" are you referring to?

 

When religious thinkers talk dogmatically they are simply behaving as instructed by their teachings. Religious thinkers are human and fallible, of course, which is why the careful ones know to remain vigilantly nervous about any outside, unapproved information, and to summarily shut out any competing ideas as heresy.

Do you have a quote here from a religious leader or again is this coming from your scientific research that you undoubtably did?

Reading, watching, listening – personal observation. Many religious leaders have told me as much. One Sunday morning’s worth of TV watching can produce plenty of relevant quotes, if that’s what you need.

 

Which part of my statement does not agree with your own personal observations of religious thinking?

 

It always amuses me whenever I hear religious people accusing scientists of being dogmatic.

Likewise it kills me whenever I hear scientists accuse religious people of being dogmatic. After all the religious people have come to their knowledge by a Supreme Being (who is all knowing) and just because scientists lack the faith, which leads to knowledge, to prove it they discard it as dogmatism.

Are you sure you understand the definition of the word “dogmatic?” Based on these statements, I’m not so sure you do.

Link to comment

I was raised in a Methodist church. Every Sunday involved Bible study, followed by deep discussions explaining why it is so critical to have faith and ignore the evil temptation to question the Bible, followed by a full one-hour general service of scripture, teachings, sermons and hymns – all telling me that I must accept certain things on faith.

 

That doesn't count the extra-curricular stuff on Saturday, weekend-long retreats, revivals, homework ...

 

I received more than twenty year's worth of such indoctrination. Been to many other churches since then. Is that enough credibility for you?

 

If your twenty something years of being involved in religion makes you and expert credible source of religion I guess my twenty something years of public education makes me a credible source on science. Hey look mom I'm a scientist!

 

Can you tell me what I missed in all of those years of indoctrination that you think I should know?

I'll be sure to drop some info into a cache nearby for you to pick up :) wait isnt that what this topic was about anyway?

 

How much time have you spent studying agnostic thought? Should I question your credibility as well?

Well you really cant because as someone once said not to long ago..."I received more than twenty year's worth of such indoctrination. Been to many other churches since then". Is that enough credibility for you?"

 

Please name one major faith in which the leaders and sincere believers have chosen to completely reject their own teachings about the reasons for our existence, and have adopted instead the scriptural explanation offered by a different major faith.

 

Prove me wrong. I am always prepared to learn.

 

Kind of my point about your apparent lack of religious knowledge. Cant you see where you are going wrong with a statement like that?

 

(As a being who seeks the Ultimate Truth and who is willing to consider ALL possibilities, no matter how non-intuitive they may sound, which system of thought do you think I respect the most?)

 

the word narcissism comes to mind here

A lame personal attack in place of a reasoned academic argument? Man, that’s so disappointing – and just when your post was getting good ...

Oh I'm sorry I guess I took that as being a compliment to yourself. I guess I didnt realize that you are just stating your credentials here for "academic argument" sake :anibad:

Link to comment
I was raised in a Methodist church. Every Sunday involved Bible study, followed by deep discussions explaining why it is so critical to have faith and ignore the evil temptation to question the Bible, followed by a full one-hour general service of scripture, teachings, sermons and hymns – all telling me that I must accept certain things on faith.
My late grandfather was a Methodist. There is quite a bit of variance from one church to another even within the same religion. Then there is quite a bit of variance from one religion to another.
Link to comment

When scientists begin to talk dogmatically they are no longer being good scientists. Scientists are human and fallible, of course, which is why the good ones know to remain vigilantly critical of each other, watching for such failures.

According to YOU no doubt as you are the one who wrote this. By the way, in your so ever humle opinion who are these "good ones" that you refer to? Are you talking about the scientist who discovered the laws of science? It would be interesting to see, like the founding fathers, how many of these feel that they were inspired :anibad:

Which "scientist who discovered the laws of science" are you referring to?

Wait wasnt that my question to you?""Who are these"good ones""?

 

When religious thinkers talk dogmatically they are simply behaving as instructed by their teachings. Religious thinkers are human and fallible, of course, which is why the careful ones know to remain vigilantly nervous about any outside, unapproved information, and to summarily shut out any competing ideas as heresy.

Do you have a quote here from a religious leader or again is this coming from your scientific research that you undoubtably did?

Reading, watching, listening – personal observation. Many religious leaders have told me as much. One Sunday morning’s worth of TV watching can produce plenty of relevant quotes, if that’s what you need.

 

Which part of my statement does not agree with your own personal observations of religious thinking?

Ummm, I like that!

 

It always amuses me whenever I hear religious people accusing scientists of being dogmatic.

Likewise it kills me whenever I hear scientists accuse religious people of being dogmatic. After all the religious people have come to their knowledge by a Supreme Being (who is all knowing) and just because scientists lack the faith, which leads to knowledge, to prove it they discard it as dogmatism.

Are you sure you understand the definition of the word “dogmatic?” Based on these statements, I’m not so sure you do.

 

Oh no, didn't you go through this with another person a few pages back! Round and round in cirles YOU go, when he'll stop nobody knows :)

Link to comment
I was raised in a Methodist church. Every Sunday involved Bible study, followed by deep discussions explaining why it is so critical to have faith and ignore the evil temptation to question the Bible, followed by a full one-hour general service of scripture, teachings, sermons and hymns – all telling me that I must accept certain things on faith.
My late grandfather was a Methodist. There is quite a bit of variance from one church to another even within the same religion. Then there is quite a bit of variance from one religion to another.

 

Dont worry TrailGator I'm sure KBI knows this and and has a complete understanding of them all after twenty plus years, he will probably tell you about it later

Link to comment

By the way KBI or anyone I reply to, I take serious topics like this one with a lot of sarcasim in my reply to keep me from getting to serious. I dont really intend to attack you personaly or offend you. If you at any time feel like I have crossed the line please let me know and I will try to fix it.

Link to comment
By the way KBI or anyone I reply to, I take serious topics like this one with a lot of sarcasim in my reply to keep me from getting to serious. I dont really intend to attack you personaly or offend you. If you at any time feel like I have crossed the line please let me know and I will try to fix it.

No offense taken.

 

... but maybe you should try being serious, at least a little, and see how it goes.

 

I'm sorry, but I saw nothing in your latest round of replies worth responding to. If you want to try again, and replace your "nya nya you're wrong and you don't know what you're talking about" with some type of actual, meaningful response, then I will be happy to give it a read.

Link to comment
I was raised in a Methodist church. Every Sunday involved Bible study, followed by deep discussions explaining why it is so critical to have faith and ignore the evil temptation to question the Bible, followed by a full one-hour general service of scripture, teachings, sermons and hymns – all telling me that I must accept certain things on faith.

My late grandfather was a Methodist. There is quite a bit of variance from one church to another even within the same religion. Then there is quite a bit of variance from one religion to another.

You seem to have missed the point.

 

Unless there are any churches within that variance which teach a system of thought that encourages doubt, is willing and eager to modify its teachings as new information comes in (up to and including total abandonment of the Bible) and requires ZERO faith, then what you are describing is irrelevant to my statement and to Roadtorque’s objection.

Link to comment
I was raised in a Methodist church. Every Sunday involved Bible study, followed by deep discussions explaining why it is so critical to have faith and ignore the evil temptation to question the Bible, followed by a full one-hour general service of scripture, teachings, sermons and hymns – all telling me that I must accept certain things on faith.

My late grandfather was a Methodist. There is quite a bit of variance from one church to another even within the same religion. Then there is quite a bit of variance from one religion to another.

You seem to have missed the point.

 

Unless there are any churches within that variance which teach a system of thought that encourages doubt, is willing and eager to modify its teachings as new information comes in (up to and including total abandonment of the Bible) and requires ZERO faith, then what you are describing is irrelevant to my statement and to Roadtorque's objection.

I'm not sure what you mean about new information. Also intrepretation of the Bible has huge variances. When it comes to the Old Testement. Some people are literalists and some see it as allegorical. Some see a mix. Lastly, I'm not sure what you mean by zero faith. Some people are very intuitive and can see the picture without having all the pieces.
Link to comment
By the way KBI or anyone I reply to, I take serious topics like this one with a lot of sarcasim in my reply to keep me from getting to serious. I dont really intend to attack you personaly or offend you. If you at any time feel like I have crossed the line please let me know and I will try to fix it.

No offense taken.

Good I'm glad

... but maybe you should try being serious, at least a little, and see how it goes.

Oh I take it serious, and I mean what I say, just realize I type with a smile on my face not a "why if I ever meet this guy in person I'm gonna..." type attitude. I would sit around a campfire or even a computer for that matter and shoot the breeze with you

I'm sorry, but I saw nothing in your latest round of replies worth responding to. If you want to try again, and replace your "nya nya you're wrong and you don't know what you're talking about" with some type of actual, meaningful response, then I will be happy to give it a read.

I know what you mean, this is why I respond so little to what you have to say... but I still read the post just to know what the topic is so when something worth while comes up I know what the history is and can make a good reply.

Link to comment
I was raised in a Methodist church. Every Sunday involved Bible study, followed by deep discussions explaining why it is so critical to have faith and ignore the evil temptation to question the Bible, followed by a full one-hour general service of scripture, teachings, sermons and hymns – all telling me that I must accept certain things on faith.

My late grandfather was a Methodist. There is quite a bit of variance from one church to another even within the same religion. Then there is quite a bit of variance from one religion to another.

You seem to have missed the point.

 

Unless there are any churches within that variance which teach a system of thought that encourages doubt, is willing and eager to modify its teachings as new information comes in (up to and including total abandonment of the Bible) and requires ZERO faith, then what you are describing is irrelevant to my statement and to Roadtorque’s objection.

 

Encouraging doubt makes no sense not only in religion but in anything where there is a teacher student relation. Did you learn about Columbus by your teacher ecouraging you to doubt the story? I think opened mindedness would be a better word here.

As for the bolded part that is impossible for a few reasons. First if the doctrine of the gospel was changing all the time that would offer no solid foundation for a person to build a testimony on. How can you have hope (the most basic type of faith) in something that is always changing. You cant build a house on a sandy foundation and expect it to stand. Second it was stated eairler in the thread that science is always changing, an example here is how many time has the earth gone from being the center of the universe to not? Religion is built upon an all knowing Supreme Being. It our job to understand him and with our finite minds that will not probably happen anytime soon. That doesnt make Him wrong. I would much rather have a thought process based on a firm foundation and that is not always found in science. You must seek the truth in both science and religion, thats our job

Link to comment
I was raised in a Methodist church. Every Sunday involved Bible study, followed by deep discussions explaining why it is so critical to have faith and ignore the evil temptation to question the Bible, followed by a full one-hour general service of scripture, teachings, sermons and hymns – all telling me that I must accept certain things on faith.

My late grandfather was a Methodist. There is quite a bit of variance from one church to another even within the same religion. Then there is quite a bit of variance from one religion to another.

You seem to have missed the point.

 

Unless there are any churches within that variance which teach a system of thought that encourages doubt, is willing and eager to modify its teachings as new information comes in (up to and including total abandonment of the Bible) and requires ZERO faith, then what you are describing is irrelevant to my statement and to Roadtorque's objection.

 

Encouraging doubt makes no sense not only in religion but in anything where there is a teacher student relation. Did you learn about Columbus by your teacher ecouraging you to doubt the story? I think opened mindedness would be a better word here.

As for the bolded part that is impossible for a few reasons. First if the doctrine of the gospel was changing all the time that would offer no solid foundation for a person to build a testimony on. How can you have hope (the most basic type of faith) in something that is always changing. You cant build a house on a sandy foundation and expect it to stand. Second it was stated eairler in the thread that science is always changing, an example here is how many time has the earth gone from being the center of the universe to not? Religion is built upon an all knowing Supreme Being. It our job to understand him and with our finite minds that will not probably happen anytime soon. That doesnt make Him wrong. I would much rather have a thought process based on a firm foundation and that is not always found in science. You must seek the truth in both science and religion, thats our job

Very well said! :anibad:
Link to comment
I was raised in a Methodist church. Every Sunday involved Bible study, followed by deep discussions explaining why it is so critical to have faith and ignore the evil temptation to question the Bible, followed by a full one-hour general service of scripture, teachings, sermons and hymns – all telling me that I must accept certain things on faith.

My late grandfather was a Methodist. There is quite a bit of variance from one church to another even within the same religion. Then there is quite a bit of variance from one religion to another.

You seem to have missed the point.

 

Unless there are any churches within that variance which teach a system of thought that encourages doubt, is willing and eager to modify its teachings as new information comes in (up to and including total abandonment of the Bible) and requires ZERO faith, then what you are describing is irrelevant to my statement and to Roadtorque's objection.

 

Encouraging doubt makes no sense not only in religion but in anything where there is a teacher student relation. Did you learn about Columbus by your teacher ecouraging you to doubt the story? I think opened mindedness would be a better word here.

As for the bolded part that is impossible for a few reasons. First if the doctrine of the gospel was changing all the time that would offer no solid foundation for a person to build a testimony on. How can you have hope (the most basic type of faith) in something that is always changing. You cant build a house on a sandy foundation and expect it to stand. Second it was stated eairler in the thread that science is always changing, an example here is how many time has the earth gone from being the center of the universe to not? Religion is built upon an all knowing Supreme Being. It our job to understand him and with our finite minds that will not probably happen anytime soon. That doesnt make Him wrong. I would much rather have a thought process based on a firm foundation and that is not always found in science. You must seek the truth in both science and religion, thats our job

Very well said! :anibad:

Thank you I will pass the compliment onto who it belongs. I am also confused on what he ment with the "requires ZERO faith" I hope he will explain this.

Edited by Roadtorque
Link to comment
I was raised in a Methodist church. Every Sunday involved Bible study, followed by deep discussions explaining why it is so critical to have faith and ignore the evil temptation to question the Bible, followed by a full one-hour general service of scripture, teachings, sermons and hymns – all telling me that I must accept certain things on faith.

My late grandfather was a Methodist. There is quite a bit of variance from one church to another even within the same religion. Then there is quite a bit of variance from one religion to another.

You seem to have missed the point.

 

Unless there are any churches within that variance which teach a system of thought that encourages doubt, is willing and eager to modify its teachings as new information comes in (up to and including total abandonment of the Bible) and requires ZERO faith, then what you are describing is irrelevant to my statement and to Roadtorque's objection.

 

Encouraging doubt makes no sense not only in religion but in anything where there is a teacher student relation. Did you learn about Columbus by your teacher ecouraging you to doubt the story? I think opened mindedness would be a better word here.

As for the bolded part that is impossible for a few reasons. First if the doctrine of the gospel was changing all the time that would offer no solid foundation for a person to build a testimony on. How can you have hope (the most basic type of faith) in something that is always changing. You cant build a house on a sandy foundation and expect it to stand. Second it was stated eairler in the thread that science is always changing, an example here is how many time has the earth gone from being the center of the universe to not? Religion is built upon an all knowing Supreme Being. It our job to understand him and with our finite minds that will not probably happen anytime soon. That doesnt make Him wrong. I would much rather have a thought process based on a firm foundation and that is not always found in science. You must seek the truth in both science and religion, thats our job

Very well said! :anibad:

Thank you. I am also confused on what he ment with the "requires ZERO faith" I hope he will explain this.

I really agree that you need to seek the truth with both science and religion. Einstein had this quote regarding that: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." That thinking ties together mind, body and spirit. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
I was raised in a Methodist church. Every Sunday involved Bible study, followed by deep discussions explaining why it is so critical to have faith and ignore the evil temptation to question the Bible, followed by a full one-hour general service of scripture, teachings, sermons and hymns – all telling me that I must accept certain things on faith.

My late grandfather was a Methodist. There is quite a bit of variance from one church to another even within the same religion. Then there is quite a bit of variance from one religion to another.

You seem to have missed the point.

 

Unless there are any churches within that variance which teach a system of thought that encourages doubt, is willing and eager to modify its teachings as new information comes in (up to and including total abandonment of the Bible) and requires ZERO faith, then what you are describing is irrelevant to my statement and to Roadtorque's objection.

I'm not sure what you mean about new information. Also intrepretation of the Bible has huge variances. When it comes to the Old Testement. Some people are literalists and some see it as allegorical. Some see a mix. Lastly, I'm not sure what you mean by zero faith. Some people are very intuitive and can see the picture without having all the pieces.

I really didn't expect you to understand. I'm not entirely sure why I bothered. :anibad:

Link to comment
I was raised in a Methodist church. Every Sunday involved Bible study, followed by deep discussions explaining why it is so critical to have faith and ignore the evil temptation to question the Bible, followed by a full one-hour general service of scripture, teachings, sermons and hymns – all telling me that I must accept certain things on faith.

My late grandfather was a Methodist. There is quite a bit of variance from one church to another even within the same religion. Then there is quite a bit of variance from one religion to another.

You seem to have missed the point.

 

Unless there are any churches within that variance which teach a system of thought that encourages doubt, is willing and eager to modify its teachings as new information comes in (up to and including total abandonment of the Bible) and requires ZERO faith, then what you are describing is irrelevant to my statement and to Roadtorque's objection.

I'm not sure what you mean about new information. Also intrepretation of the Bible has huge variances. When it comes to the Old Testement. Some people are literalists and some see it as allegorical. Some see a mix. Lastly, I'm not sure what you mean by zero faith. Some people are very intuitive and can see the picture without having all the pieces.

I really didn't expect you to understand. I'm not entirely sure why I bothered. :anibad:

Just because you can't get your point across doesn't mean that the listeners are stupid. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
... but maybe you should try being serious, at least a little, and see how it goes.

Oh I take it serious, and I mean what I say, just realize I type with a smile on my face not a "why if I ever meet this guy in person I'm gonna..." type attitude. I would sit around a campfire or even a computer for that matter and shoot the breeze with you

Trust me, I’m with you 100% on that concept. If we ever meet, the beer’s on me. No need to keep pre-apologizing. :)

 

In fact, I would encourage you, and anyone else for that matter, never to apologize for expressing a sincere, honest and carefully considered opinion that is based on genuine personal beliefs and principles.

 

I'm sorry, but I saw nothing in your latest round of replies worth responding to. If you want to try again, and replace your "nya nya you're wrong and you don't know what you're talking about" with some type of actual, meaningful response, then I will be happy to give it a read.

I know what you mean, this is why I respond so little to what you have to say... but I still read the post just to know what the topic is so when something worth while comes up I know what the history is and can make a good reply.

I'm sorry, but I really have no idea what that is supposed to mean. :anibad:

Link to comment
I'm sorry, but I saw nothing in your latest round of replies worth responding to. If you want to try again, and replace your "nya nya you're wrong and you don't know what you're talking about" with some type of actual, meaningful response, then I will be happy to give it a read.

I know what you mean, this is why I respond so little to what you have to say... but I still read the post just to know what the topic is so when something worth while comes up I know what the history is and can make a good reply.

I'm sorry, but I really have no idea what that is supposed to mean. :)

It means that he will be well prepared to respond when there is something worth responding to.

 

I wish I could do that will some of your posts.... :anibad:

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
... but maybe you should try being serious, at least a little, and see how it goes.

Oh I take it serious, and I mean what I say, just realize I type with a smile on my face not a "why if I ever meet this guy in person I'm gonna..." type attitude. I would sit around a campfire or even a computer for that matter and shoot the breeze with you

Trust me, I’m with you 100% on that concept. If we ever meet, the beer’s on me. No need to keep pre-apologizing. :)

 

In fact, I would encourage you, and anyone else for that matter, never to apologize for expressing a sincere, honest and carefully considered opinion that is based on genuine personal beliefs and principles.

 

I'm sorry, but I saw nothing in your latest round of replies worth responding to. If you want to try again, and replace your "nya nya you're wrong and you don't know what you're talking about" with some type of actual, meaningful response, then I will be happy to give it a read.

I know what you mean, this is why I respond so little to what you have to say... but I still read the post just to know what the topic is so when something worth while comes up I know what the history is and can make a good reply.

I'm sorry, but I really have no idea what that is supposed to mean. :anibad:

"Well I really didnt expect you to understand... "Just kidding I will try to explain. What I meant by "this is why I respond so little to what you have to say" is this... Just like you didnt see anything in my post that you felt worth responding to this is why I have only made one or two of reply's to you in this entire thread. I find that you go in circles never really saying anything just typing. I thought it not worth my time to respond to you until a few post ago when you brought up a valid topic. Thats what I ment. In other more simple words I dont blame you for not responding to my "nya nya" because I dont respond to yours

Edited by Roadtorque
Link to comment
... but maybe you should try being serious, at least a little, and see how it goes.

Oh I take it serious, and I mean what I say, just realize I type with a smile on my face not a "why if I ever meet this guy in person I'm gonna..." type attitude. I would sit around a campfire or even a computer for that matter and shoot the breeze with you

Trust me, I'm with you 100% on that concept. If we ever meet, the beer's on me. No need to keep pre-apologizing. :D

 

In fact, I would encourage you, and anyone else for that matter, never to apologize for expressing a sincere, honest and carefully considered opinion that is based on genuine personal beliefs and principles.

 

I'm sorry, but I saw nothing in your latest round of replies worth responding to. If you want to try again, and replace your "nya nya you're wrong and you don't know what you're talking about" with some type of actual, meaningful response, then I will be happy to give it a read.

I know what you mean, this is why I respond so little to what you have to say... but I still read the post just to know what the topic is so when something worth while comes up I know what the history is and can make a good reply.

I'm sorry, but I really have no idea what that is supposed to mean. :)

"Well I really didnt expect you to understand... "Just kidding I will try to explain. What I meant by "this is why I respond so little to what you have to say" is this... Just like you didnt see anything in my post that you felt worth responding to this is why I have only made one or two of reply's to you in this entire thread. I find that you go in circles never really saying anything just typing. I thought it not worth my time to respond to you until a few post ago when you brought up a valid topic. Thats what I ment. In other more simple words I dont blame you for not responding to my "nya nya" because I dont respond to yours

You say "nya nya" and I say "blah blah." :anibad:
Link to comment
... but maybe you should try being serious, at least a little, and see how it goes.

Oh I take it serious, and I mean what I say, just realize I type with a smile on my face not a "why if I ever meet this guy in person I'm gonna..." type attitude. I would sit around a campfire or even a computer for that matter and shoot the breeze with you

Trust me, I'm with you 100% on that concept. If we ever meet, the beer's on me. No need to keep pre-apologizing. :D

 

In fact, I would encourage you, and anyone else for that matter, never to apologize for expressing a sincere, honest and carefully considered opinion that is based on genuine personal beliefs and principles.

 

I'm sorry, but I saw nothing in your latest round of replies worth responding to. If you want to try again, and replace your "nya nya you're wrong and you don't know what you're talking about" with some type of actual, meaningful response, then I will be happy to give it a read.

I know what you mean, this is why I respond so little to what you have to say... but I still read the post just to know what the topic is so when something worth while comes up I know what the history is and can make a good reply.

I'm sorry, but I really have no idea what that is supposed to mean. :)

"Well I really didnt expect you to understand... "Just kidding I will try to explain. What I meant by "this is why I respond so little to what you have to say" is this... Just like you didnt see anything in my post that you felt worth responding to this is why I have only made one or two of reply's to you in this entire thread. I find that you go in circles never really saying anything just typing. I thought it not worth my time to respond to you until a few post ago when you brought up a valid topic. Thats what I ment. In other more simple words I dont blame you for not responding to my "nya nya" because I dont respond to yours

You say "nya nya" and I say "blah blah." :anibad:

Wish I could take credit for these words but I was quoting KBI. I'm not trying to pick sides but I also say blah blah

Link to comment
... but maybe you should try being serious, at least a little, and see how it goes.

Oh I take it serious, and I mean what I say, just realize I type with a smile on my face not a "why if I ever meet this guy in person I'm gonna..." type attitude. I would sit around a campfire or even a computer for that matter and shoot the breeze with you

Trust me, I'm with you 100% on that concept. If we ever meet, the beer's on me. No need to keep pre-apologizing. :)

 

In fact, I would encourage you, and anyone else for that matter, never to apologize for expressing a sincere, honest and carefully considered opinion that is based on genuine personal beliefs and principles.

 

I'm sorry, but I saw nothing in your latest round of replies worth responding to. If you want to try again, and replace your "nya nya you're wrong and you don't know what you're talking about" with some type of actual, meaningful response, then I will be happy to give it a read.

I know what you mean, this is why I respond so little to what you have to say... but I still read the post just to know what the topic is so when something worth while comes up I know what the history is and can make a good reply.

I'm sorry, but I really have no idea what that is supposed to mean. :D

"Well I really didnt expect you to understand... "Just kidding I will try to explain. What I meant by "this is why I respond so little to what you have to say" is this... Just like you didnt see anything in my post that you felt worth responding to this is why I have only made one or two of reply's to you in this entire thread. I find that you go in circles never really saying anything just typing. I thought it not worth my time to respond to you until a few post ago when you brought up a valid topic. Thats what I ment. In other more simple words I dont blame you for not responding to my "nya nya" because I dont respond to yours

You say "nya nya" and I say "blah blah." :anibad:

Wish I could take credit for these words but I was quoting KBI. I'm not trying to pick sides but I also say blah blah

:D
Link to comment
Encouraging doubt makes no sense not only in religion but in anything where there is a teacher student relation.

I strongly disagree.

 

Did you learn about Columbus by your teacher ecouraging you to doubt the story?

Perfect example of why I disagree.

 

If I refused to doubt all the things my teacher said when she taught me Columbus “discovered” America, then I would have been accepting the information as dogma – and would have refused to acknowledge conflicting information such as the fact that Columbus never set foot on the North American continent, the fact that Columbus was not the first to demonstrate that the earth is round, and the fact that Columbus was not even the first European to discover the new world.

 

Critical thinking, along with a willingness to consider all sources of information, beats blind dogma every time.

 

As for the bolded part that is impossible for a few reasons. First if the doctrine of the gospel was changing all the time that would offer no solid foundation for a person to build a testimony on.

I don’t want “unchanging gospel.” I want to know the truth. As we just demonstrated with the Columbus example, blind belief in something just because it appears in print and comes from an authoritative-sounding source is just too risky.

 

How can you have hope (the most basic type of faith) in something that is always changing.

Medicine is an example of something that is always changing, yet which gives me much hope.

 

Experts used to believe, quite sincerely, in the benefits of bloodletting as a treatment for many diseases. I don't know about you, but am glad I live in a time when that form of treatment has been abandoned. I see no reason to doubt that medicine will continue to advance, and that some of the things doctors do today will seem similarly silly to future generations.

 

Would you rather your doctor use an 18th-century treatment such as bloodletting on you so as to protect you from your fear of change?

 

Second it was stated eairler in the thread that science is always changing, an example here is how many time has the earth gone from being the center of the universe to not?

Your question is unclear: Are you talking about the Earth itself changing, or are you talking about our understanding of the Earth changing?

 

Religion is built upon an all knowing Supreme Being.

Can you prove to me there is an all-knowing Supreme Being?

 

It our job to understand him and with our finite minds that will not probably happen anytime soon. That doesnt make Him wrong. I would much rather have a thought process based on a firm foundation and that is not always found in science.

What you are saying is that you dislike change, and that you prefer not to have to think for yourself. What you are saying is that you want someone to tell you what to believe.

 

What you are saying is that you prefer dogma over critical thought.

 

You must seek the truth in both science and religion, thats our job

Yes I must.

 

I’m working on it – but in the process, I refuse to accept anything on blind faith. I need convincing evidence, not just someone telling me to “believe.”

Link to comment
You must seek the truth in both science and religion, thats our job

Yes I must.

 

I'm working on it – but in the process, I refuse to accept anything on blind faith. I need convincing evidence, not just someone telling me to "believe."

"The only real valuable thing is intuition." - Einstein
Link to comment
You say "nya nya" and I say "blah blah." :anibad:

I'm not trying to pick sides but I also say blah blah

I think I'm going to go to bed now, and turn this scholarly and highbrow academic debate over to you two fine gentlemen for a while.

Link to comment

[/u][/i][/b]

I strongly disagree.

 

Well if you didnt the post would have ended a long time ago

 

Perfect example of why I disagree.

 

If I refused to doubt all the things my teacher said when she taught me Columbus “discovered” America, then I would have been accepting the information as dogma – and would have refused to acknowledge conflicting information such as the fact that Columbus never set foot on the North American continent, the fact that Columbus was not the first to demonstrate that the earth is round, and the fact that Columbus was not even the first European to discover the new world.

 

Critical thinking, along with a willingness to consider all sources of information, beats blind dogma every time.

 

Stick with what you said the first time. Here you are saying its a good thing you doubted your teacher. The first time this came up you said "Unless there are any churches... which teach a system of thought that encourages doubt" Your teacher didnt encourage you to doubt her, she couldn't or else how could she expect you to trust anything else she taught you? Take a minute and answer the questions we are asking you and then stick to the subject. I'm not saying accept everything at face value, I just said a teacher can not encourage you to doubt

 

I don’t want “unchanging gospel.” I want to know the truth. As we just demonstrated with the Columbus example, blind belief in something just because it appears in print and comes from an authoritative-sounding source is just too risky.

 

The gospel can not change, if it did that would make God a liar and he would cease to be God. This can not happen. Again becasue your finite brain of which we tend to get 10% doesnt get it doent mean its not true.

 

Ummm, WE didnt demonstrate anything, you demonstrated... and it was not what you said the first time

 

 

Your question is unclear: Are you talking about the Earth itself changing, or are you talking about our understanding of the Earth changing?

 

I was talking about the idea going back and forth from the everything orbits the sun to everything orbits the earth. Because science can not operate outside of what we know, which is always changing, it makes it a finite science impossible of giving all the answers

 

Can you prove to me there is an all-knowing Supreme Being?

 

Thats what I love about conspiracy theorist. You are so quick to say something is not true. Sorry my friend but the burden to prove remains with you. Good luck because the only thing you have to work off is your word alone. Like I said in an earlier post. EVERYTHING does witness that there is a Surpreme Creator. Just open your eyes and the first things you see will stand as a testimony against you.

 

What you are saying is that you dislike change, and that you prefer not to have to think for yourself. What you are saying is that you want someone to tell you what to believe.

 

What you are saying is that you prefer dogma over critical thought.

 

Thanks for trying! Lets leave what I'm saying to me.

 

Yes I must.

 

I’m working on it – but in the process, I refuse to accept anything on blind faith. I need convincing evidence, not just someone telling me to “believe.”

"You will not recive a witness until after the trial of your faith"

Link to comment

I have been scanning the last page of this thread and it would now seem to consist entirely of a "Religion vs Science" debate. While I'm impressed that it has remained intelligent and polite I have to ask one fundamental question:

 

What has this to do with geocaching?

 

It has gone way beyond the original question of the suitability of religious materials in caches.

Link to comment
I have been scanning the last page of this thread and it would now seem to consist entirely of a "Religion vs Science" debate. While I'm impressed that it has remained intelligent and polite I have to ask one fundamental question:

 

What has this to do with geocaching?

 

It has gone way beyond the original question of the suitability of religious materials in caches.

This is why it's a poor idea to discuss religion or politics in a public forum.
Link to comment

I have been scanning the last page of this thread and it would now seem to consist entirely of a "Religion vs Science" debate. While I'm impressed that it has remained intelligent and polite I have to ask one fundamental question:

 

What has this to do with geocaching?

 

It has gone way beyond the original question of the suitability of religious materials in caches.

 

My interpretation after reading this thread is that religious tracts is a form of holy spam.

 

Spam is "unclean" according to both Deuteronomy 14:8, and in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1975).

Link to comment

I have been scanning the last page of this thread and it would now seem to consist entirely of a "Religion vs Science" debate. While I'm impressed that it has remained intelligent and polite I have to ask one fundamental question:

 

What has this to do with geocaching?

 

It has gone way beyond the original question of the suitability of religious materials in caches.

 

My interpretation after reading this thread is that religious tracts is a form of holy spam.

 

Spam is "unclean" according to both Deuteronomy 14:8, and in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1975).

Let the record show that 4wheelin_fool regularly leaves religious tracts advertising his bizarre First Urantian Church of the Holy Elohim Mother Ship flying saucer cult in caches. :anibad:

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team
Link to comment
Stick with what you said the first time. Here you are saying its a good thing you doubted your teacher. The first time this came up you said "Unless there are any churches... which teach a system of thought that encourages doubt" Your teacher didnt encourage you to doubt her, she couldn't or else how could she expect you to trust anything else she taught you? Take a minute and answer the questions we are asking you and then stick to the subject. I'm not saying accept everything at face value, I just said a teacher can not encourage you to doubt

ALL good teachers encourage questioning.

 

If a teacher is confident in the factuality of the material his teaching, he knows you are unlikely to find anything outside his classroom which will contradict the material. He also knows that if you DO find any contradictory information, it is probably something he needs to know, and he understands you are therefore doing him a favor by correcting his information.

 

The teachers who are insecure and uncertain of their subject matter are the only ones who ever discourage or forbid their students from actively seeking and considering alternative information. You, for example, are demonstrating what I see as an irrational fear of anything that has the word “science” attached to it.

 

I respect any teacher who persuades one to accept a new idea by first presenting accepted premises, then demonstrating via sound and valid logic that the new idea flows naturally from the premises as an undeniable conclusion.

 

Can you prove to me there is an all-knowing Supreme Being?

Thats what I love about conspiracy theorist. You are so quick to say something is not true.

I said nothing about anything being either true or untrue. I only asked a question.

 

Sorry my friend but the burden to prove remains with you. Good luck because the only thing you have to work off is your word alone. Like I said in an earlier post. EVERYTHING does witness that there is a Surpreme Creator. Just open your eyes and the first things you see will stand as a testimony against you.

I have observed the wonder of everything around me, the very same wonder you have seen, I am sure. The existence of the wonder is not what is in question here. The question is why two people reach two different, incompatible conclusions while observing the same evidence. THAT is the issue.

 

As to the “burden of proof,” I am quite comfortable in my beliefs. I believe it is you who first came in here and decided to try to convince me otherwise by attacking my definition of science, comparing it unfavorably to your religious dogma. That puts the burden of proof squarely on you.

 

If you are not really interested in trying to convince me of anything, that’s fine. That’s up to you.

 

Yes I must.

 

I’m working on it – but in the process, I refuse to accept anything on blind faith. I need convincing evidence, not just someone telling me to “believe.”

"You will not recive a witness until after the trial of your faith"

What faith?

 

My faith in the existence of an invisible, omnipotent and omniscient supreme deity responsible for all creation was tried, and failed, exactly 31 years ago. I still remember the moment.

 

It has now been almost a third of a century since the “trial of my faith.” Where is my convincing evidence? Where is my “witness?”

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Many intelligent people possess deep beliefs in supernatural beings, such as God, Allah, angels, devils and the like. The fact that these beliefs are exceedingly popular and widely accepted is a fact I cannot deny. My private goal is to square that fact with my own non-religious beliefs about the universe. The best—and only—way I know to go about it is via honest and open-minded research.

 

Roadtorque, I am carefully reading each of your posts in the hope you might convince me to question what I believe, and to consider instead that which you believe. I am losing interest in this debate, however, because you do not seem to be interested in reciprocating.

 

You are not teaching to me with reason; you are preaching at me from dogma.

 

The fact that you simultaneously accuse all scientific thought of being dogmatic is merely a distracting and entertaining ironic contradiction.

 

“EVERYTHING does witness that there is a Surpreme Creator” doesn’t convince me to abandon my strong doubt in the existence of a deity any more than “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it” does.

 

As I said before: I respect any teacher who persuades one to accept a new idea by first presenting accepted premises, then demonstrating via sound and valid logic that the new idea flows naturally from the premises as an undeniable conclusion.

 

Can you convince me to abandon any of my beliefs in favor of your beliefs using that methodology, Roadtorque? If so, be careful; you might come dangerously close to thinking like a scientist. :anibad:

Link to comment
I have been scanning the last page of this thread and it would now seem to consist entirely of a "Religion vs Science" debate. While I'm impressed that it has remained intelligent and polite I have to ask one fundamental question:

 

What has this to do with geocaching?

 

It has gone way beyond the original question of the suitability of religious materials in caches.

I plead guilty.

 

My problem is that I am enjoying the discussion, and I am getting a lot out of it.

 

I also think the fervor some people use in this thread during the expression of their deep religious faith plainly illustrates the fact that it is probably impossible to ever prevent such fervor from making its way into Geocaches.

 

If the mods choose to pull the plug on this thread at some point I will understand completely – but I will also be VERY disappointed.

Link to comment
I do not enjoy finding religious material in caches I visit. My gut reaction would be to discard it. I don't though. I just leave it there. It is easier to ignore it than risk the chance of offending anyone.

If the existence of a tract bothers you, then the person who placed it there obviously didn’t care that it might bother you.

 

Why, then, would you worry whether the removal of the tract might bother them?

 

I might remove it myself, or I might not. Whether the removal of the tract might offend the person who placed it would not, however, enter into my decision.

 

As I have explained before: I don’t think the fact that a person declares himself to be religious gives him any special immunity from the common courtesy of the Golden Rule.

Link to comment
I really agree that you need to seek the truth with both science and religion. Einstein had this quote regarding that: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." That thinking ties together mind, body and spirit.

I knew I’d seen that quote before.

 

Today, by pure coincidence, I found it, in a book by Richard Dawkins:

 

Much unfortunate confusion is caused by failure to distinguish what can be called Einsteinian religion from supernatural religion. Einstein sometimes invoked the name of God (and he is not the only atheist scientist to do so), inviting misunderstanding by supernaturalists eager to misunderstand and claim so illustrious a thinker as their own.

 

One of Einstein’s most eagerly quoted remarks is "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." But Einstein also said:

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

 

Religion and God are words Einstein used to refer to his awe and wonder when contemplating the complexity and poetry of the universe. Einstein did not, however, ever express any belief that a supernatural entity is responsible for the creation of the universe.

 

See a big honkin’ bucketload of religion-relevant Einstein quotes here.

 

It has been my experience that anti-science types tend to butcher evidence, misrepresent theories, and take quotes out of context whenever it suits their purposes. This latest misleading quote is consistent with that agenda.

Link to comment
I really agree that you need to seek the truth with both science and religion. Einstein had this quote regarding that: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." That thinking ties together mind, body and spirit.

I knew I'd seen that quote before.

 

Today, by pure coincidence, I found it, in a book by Richard Dawkins:

 

Much unfortunate confusion is caused by failure to distinguish what can be called Einsteinian religion from supernatural religion. Einstein sometimes invoked the name of God (and he is not the only atheist scientist to do so), inviting misunderstanding by supernaturalists eager to misunderstand and claim so illustrious a thinker as their own.

 

One of Einstein's most eagerly quoted remarks is "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." But Einstein also said:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

 

Religion and God are words Einstein used to refer to his awe and wonder when contemplating the complexity and poetry of the universe. Einstein did not, however, ever express any belief that a supernatural entity is responsible for the creation of the universe.

 

See a big honkin' bucketload of religion-relevant Einstein quotes here.

 

It has been my experience that anti-science types tend to butcher evidence, misrepresent theories, and take quotes out of context whenever it suits their purposes. This latest misleading quote is consistent with that agenda.

 

There are a boatload of more quotes here. Several quotes are his thoughts about God. I've never met a non-science type. I myself am a dual type.

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

dont shove any religion/believe down anyones throat, history is full with people doing that and everytime people get hurt, imprisoned, drowned, burned, tortured or killed.

good commerce tho, more believers = more donations. dont wanna believe? well, donate anyway or we'll hurt/"annoy the hell out of" you.

 

and if you want to make a point against tracts : follow the GC rule : trade up

just take out the tract and trade up... with whatever you consider is "up".

put in a twig, = wood = paper, to put new tract on. save the rain forest.

put in a sigh of miscontent

if they can put in it, you can take it out. just dont litter.

Edited by Guinness70
Link to comment

I have been scanning the last page of this thread and it would now seem to consist entirely of a "Religion vs Science" debate. While I'm impressed that it has remained intelligent and polite I have to ask one fundamental question:

 

What has this to do with geocaching?

 

It has gone way beyond the original question of the suitability of religious materials in caches.

 

My interpretation after reading this thread is that religious tracts is a form of holy spam.

 

Spam is "unclean" according to both Deuteronomy 14:8, and in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1975).

Let the record show that 4wheelin_fool regularly leaves religious tracts advertising his bizarre First Urantian Church of the Holy Elohim Mother Ship flying saucer cult in caches. :P

 

Let me clear a few misconceptions here,

 

First of all, they are not "religious tracts," but warnings.

 

Second, they were not left by me, but include my photo only because of a ongoing dispute with the First , Urantian Holy Elohim Mother Ship lawyers who have implied that I have given consent, which I have NOT. Furthermore, due to a second separate lawsuit filed by Scientologists and the ghost of old Mother Hubbard, I cannot comment any further. :laughing:

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...