I’ll not debate with you the efficacy of religion or existance of God, but you can’t (shouldn’t, anyway) redefine words in order to attempt to make a point. In no dictionary, thesaurus or other reputable text will you find the word faith defined as “the denial of facts and logic”. The most commonly used definition in main stream religion is 2B(1) in the Merriam Webster online edition “firm belief in something for which there is no proof”.
The same word could be used to describe those who believe in the big bang theory - to the best of our current knowlege, physics still dictates that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. There would obviously be a massive amount of energy involved in the big bang, and since the genesis of that energy (and the mass it acted on) has not been proven, then it’s existence is, by definition, taken on faith.
I now return you to the hyperbolic nattering currently in progress…
:rolleyes: Nonsense. There’s plenty of evidence for the Big Bang, nor does it violate the law of conservation of energy; according to some theories the total energy of the universe is zero, in fact. You are just indulging in the standard routine of the defenders of religion where they try to create a false equivalency between a scientific theory and the outright making things up that religion does. Are you going to haul out the “evolution is just a theory” line next?
And the definition used by religions is one in which there is no evidence at best for their claims at best, and usually one where the evidence outright contradicts what the religion says. Not “proof”.
Wow!! You’re not even trying to be right, are you?
There are thousands, possibly millions, of people who every day do science and are believers.
Maybe reading about the Pontifical Academy of Sciences can help.
If you’re on the side of reason and logic…poor Newton is rolling in his grave.
It doesn’t mean religion (any, some, all) is right (not at all, a bit, a lot, all), simply that your statement as to incompatibility is waaaaaaaaay off.
Sure, if you believe that the Earth was literally created in six 24-hour period 6000 years ago, some of the scientific endeavor will be hampered. Even so, I imagine there are some YEC who can do scientific work
There’s no reason to treat the two as if they’re mutually exclusive. A church may spend a substantial part of its budget on the pastor’s salary, but if the pastor spends much of his or her time on the job helping those in need, then why shouldn’t that money count as money spent on those in need? And some money gets spent on buildings as well, but if the buildings are used for education, housing the homeless, and so forth, then why shouldn’t that money count as a charitable donation?
To take this seriously, I’d first need to know what you mean by “disappears the money”, and then get a cite for your claim. Most of the major churches in this country have open books, so finding out how they use their money is not difficult for those who want to know.
Whoah whoah whoah…I’d never tell anyone to put down a beer.
Unless it was my beer.
I found out that my future sister and brother-in-law, and possible more of that family, are YEC last night.
I made a few disparaging remarks about Ken Ham, and apparently they were offended because they agree with him. They threw out a few horrible reasoned remarks in support of YEC.
Nobody who understands and is honest about science can support YEC. Science as it is commonly understood is incompatible with YEC. Any of the PhDs that Ham keeps mentioning (and it was the same 3 or 4, over and over) are mentally ill.
I’m still trying to figure out if Ham actually believes his own shit, or if it’s a huge scam and he’s just a liar and a charlatan having a bit of fun.
Most Churches I have experience of spend most of their staffs and building resources on other things (administration, religious education, services, evangelizing, etc.). They also do the occasional charitable food-drive or fundraiser, but I don’t think I’ve been a member of a Church where that absorbed anywhere close to 50% of their resources.
I don’t have any problem with people donating to support churches if that’s what they want to do. But if what you really want to do is donate to help the poor, donating to a church is probably the least efficient way to do so. There are, after all, plenty of organizations (including many religious ones) whose primary mission is helping such people, and so you don’t have to go through contortions of saying that because the parish hall is used once a month for a food drive, your tithe is primarily about feeding the hungry.
You’re not reading very carefully. Your anger is because you perceive that I am attacking your beliefs.
The sentence you had so much trouble reading referred to the fact that religion and reason are incompatible in the same way that religion and science are. For spelling this out for you–you’re welcome.
Re the other point I made–every religion denies the reality of death. Every single one. If the priests didn’t promise this, no one would put money in their baskets, give them their women, etc.
Re: OK, then, name any one of a myriad of beliefs common to just about all religions, such as that dead people aren’t actually dead. Or that there is some magical presence watching over us to make sure that we obey all the rules and preparing rewards if we do and punishments if we don’t.
How are either of those propositions scientifically testable? They’re outside the purview of science, by definition.
“The earth is six thousand years old”, by contrast, is testable, and we know the outcome of testing that particular hypothesis.
(bolding mine)
That’s exactly what I (and Merriam-Webster) said - you believe in something for which there is (as yet) no proof. Several hundred theories about the beginnings of the universe have been proven to be wrong. These may be as well. They may not. Look, I’m not arguing against big bang, or anything else. Just that everyone believes something that has not been proven. That is the dictionary definition of “faith”.
Ah, yes, the “one religion believes as all religions” theory. Disproven, I believe, about the same time as the “one person believes as all persons” theory.
Again, I won’t debate religion with you - not mine or anyone else’s. Word meanings and logical fallacies, though, are proveable and I’m not sure why you of the scientific method would try to argue against those.
When it comes to threads on religion Der Trihs, I’ve noticed that you tend to get worked up in a blind rage and use the same tactics (specifically hyperbole, generalization and changing/blurring word meanings) for which you disparage the other side. I mean no disrespect, just my observation.
But I don’t see any reason to suppose that the “other things” are less worthy of support. Providing food to people to the poor is great; I support it. Counseling a person who needs it is also great, even if the person is middle class or, and I support that to. Funding a village school in Africa is great, and I support that. Funding Christian education for kids here in my community is also great, and I support that.
In Der Trihs’s world, religion = fundamentalist Christianity. That’s the only kind of religion that exists, apparently. Actually, that seems to be the case with a small, but quite vocal set of Dopers, despite repeated attempts AND cites showing the opposite.
That’s fine. But it isn’t consistant with your original post. If you want most of your money to go to provide necessities for those in need,as you originally said, you probably shouldn’t give it to the church.
If you want it to go to “other things” that churches do, then obviously the church would be the place to donate your cash.
Hindus, Buddhists=reincarnation. You don’t really die, so relax.
I admit I don’t know anything about Andean religions but despite that, I would lay 10,000-1 odds that each and every one of them denies death in some way–afterlife, reincarnation, transmigration, etc. The universal appeal of religion is that it denies the nasty reality of death.