Does Modern Science Owe Its Existence to Religion?

[The Grand Nudger]

I read every post from the beginning of this thread, just to be sure.

You dropped a grand total of seven(7) names (add more to the list if I missed one). This is what constitutes a majority to you? It would appear that the more appropriate way for you to have phrased your statement, would be

"The majority of sources I consulted"

Now you'll have to explain why those few sources were compelling enough that you described them as the "majority opinion". Because we obviously aren't talking a majority of numbers. Actually, if you tallied up every word in your post, I would be willing to bet that there are still more scientists in the world than there are words in your post. If every word in your post was a source from a credible scientist, I do not believe that you would be able to call that group a majority. You've already been questioned with regards to your sources, and since you had nothing meaningful to add, I assume there is nothing meaningful about them.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

I did. I was an atheist by the time I was 15 yet I never even picked up a book on it until I was 31. Hell, I didn't even know who Richard Dawkins was until South Park did an episode on him.

As far as original research, one only needs to look at human nature and see the need for control over its environment. This means explaining the cosmos any way possible, regardless of its basis in reality. This doesn't explain lack of a deistic type god, a concept which I claim agnosticism towards, but to me, it is good enough to dismiss any specific god humans have claimed to exist.

My point is that one need not study the cosmos to become an atheist. One only needs to understand how finite the human mind is and how strong the urge to explain the unknown with anything to maintain some sort of illusion of control over it. Any concept of god that lays claim to his/her/its attributes is flawed from the ground up.

---

Well I believe you, but I believe you because you don't act like the other atheists on here. So it makes sense that you didn't get your atheism from the “New Atheism”, or else I don't think you'd act the way you do now.

However, I feel that human nature is strong evidence to support scripture. Jesus described the human condition perfectly. If he had said that humans were naturally good creatures who just wanted to get along and do things for others I may be a bit skeptical.

---

---

I read every post from the beginning of this thread, just to be sure.

You dropped a grand total of seven(7) names (add more to the list if I missed one). This is what constitutes a majority to you? It would appear that the more appropriate way for you to have phrased your statement, would be

"The majority of sources I consulted"

Now you'll have to explain why those few sources were compelling enough that you described them as the "majority opinion". Because we obviously aren't talking a majority of numbers. Actually, if you tallied up every word in your post, I would be willing to bet that there are still more scientists in the world than there are words in your post. If every word in your post was a source from a credible scientist, I do not believe that you would be able to call that group a majority. You've already been questioned with regards to your sources, and since you had nothing meaningful to add, I assume there is nothing meaningful about them.

---

This is absurd and you know it. When someone says, "the majority of historians believe that slavery played an important role in the American Civil War" do you ask them, "Please provide me with a quote saying this exact thing from a majority of the historians alive today?” Of course not! You would take quotes from notable historians with different areas of expertise and use these as evidence. Perhaps you could even take some quotes from important players in the Civil War who spoke of slavery and the role it played. This is exactly what I have done here; I certainly wouldn't provide a chart showing how slavery played a vital role in the Civil War lol.

Do you believe the majority of scientists today believe in Natural Selection? Uh oh! Be careful :-P

[Faith No More]

However, I feel that human nature is strong evidence to support scripture. Jesus described the human condition perfectly. If he had said that humans were naturally good creatures who just wanted to get along and do things for others I may be a bit skeptical.

Jesus' accuracy on the human condition says nothing about his divinity. One only needs to spend a day out in the world to recognize the flaws of our species so the ability to notice this is not anything out of the ordinary. I take the Thomas Jefferson approach to Jesus' teachings and believe once you weed out the religious aspect it is a good model for life. Although I think that Buddhism presents a better model for spiritual growth.

The fact that Jesus is worshipped as he is, however, is more indicative of the human need for guidance through life by someone they believe understands life on a deeper level.

[Napoléon]

Do you believe the majority of scientists today believe in Natural Selection? Uh oh! Be careful :-P

I'm expecting the general ignorance buzzer to go off.

But yeah.

Now prove me wrong

[Anomalocaris]

However, I feel that human nature is strong evidence to support scripture. Jesus described the human condition perfectly. If he had said that humans were naturally good creatures who just wanted to get along and do things for others I may be a bit skeptical.

If the tulip tunip had thought his Jesus really said humans were naturally good creatures who just wanted to get along and do things for others, then the tulip would have simply sprouted the opposite: "Jesus described the human condition perfectly, If he had said that humans were naturally evil creatures who needed saving I may be a bit skeptical."

For him, it is the conclusion first, then any bullshit he can string together that appears to him to lead to the conclusion afterwards.

God is true, therefore all evidence could not possible fail to prove, it's only a matter of concocting a story about how. If he thinks god said "I bequeath thee fart", He would argue the fact that human being may uncontrollably fart proves god. If he thinks god said "farting is wicked", he would argue the existence of social convention is against farting in public proves god.

He is worthless shit best left to be viewed as a rather sordid spectacle than to be talked to.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Jesus' accuracy on the human condition says nothing about his divinity. One only needs to spend a day out in the world to recognize the flaws of our species so the ability to notice this is not anything out of the ordinary. I take the Thomas Jefferson approach to Jesus' teachings and believe once you weed out the religious aspect it is a good model for life. Although I think that Buddhism presents a better model for spiritual growth.

The fact that Jesus is worshipped as he is, however, is more indicative of the human need for guidance through life by someone they believe understands life on a deeper level.

---

He did more than just notice the human condition though; he knew things about people that he should have never been able to know. He knew their darkest secrets at the moment of first meeting them. I don't believe Jesus is worshipped as merely a great teacher though, but rather as the son of God and God in person.

Are there other religions that describe human nature the way scripture does? I am not aware of any actually, if you know of any fill me in.

---

---

Do you believe the majority of scientists today believe in Natural Selection? Uh oh! Be careful :-P

I'm expecting the general ignorance buzzer to go off.

But yeah.

Now prove me wrong

---

No, I am sorry, but according to Rhythm you have to prove this. So please quote an actual majority of scientists (a number in the tens of thousands no doubt) that explicitly state they believe in natural selection. If you have a problem with this absurd demand then take it up with Rhythm because he is the one who first asked for it.

---

---

However, I feel that human nature is strong evidence to support scripture. Jesus described the human condition perfectly. If he had said that humans were naturally good creatures who just wanted to get along and do things for others I may be a bit skeptical.

If the tulip tunip had thought his Jesus really said humans were naturally good creatures who just wanted to get along and do things for others, then the tulip would have simply sprouted the opposite: "Jesus described the human condition perfectly, If he had said that humans were naturally evil creatures who needed saving I may be a bit skeptical."

For him, it is the conclusion first, then any bullshit he can string together that appears to him to lead to the conclusion afterwards.

God is true, therefore all evidence could not possible fail to prove, it's only a matter of concocting a story about how. If he thinks god said "I bequeath thee fart", He would argue the fact that human being may uncontrollably fart proves god. If he thinks god said "farting is wicked", he would argue the existence of social convention is against farting in public proves god.

He is worthless shit best left to be viewed as a rather sordid spectacle than to be talked to.

---

Here we are having an interesting conversation about the human condition and you come in and start trying to prove your point with farts? Are you for real? How old are you? :-)

[Shell B]

You're right, Stat. I am back, but only to carry out my pseudo-mod duties. Please fix your quotes on the previous page. Furthermore, we already talked about hiding small quotes. You obviously ignored me. Consider this the second time we talked about it.

[Statler Waldorf]

You're right, Stat. I am back, but only to carry out my pseudo-mod duties. Please fix your quotes on the previous page. Furthermore, we already talked about hiding small quotes. You obviously ignored me. Consider this the second time we talked about it.

I believe these matters should be taken care of in private message, that's what the more courteous Mods seem to do. Since I have been warned for not using the hide tags and now warned for using the hide tags please define a "short" post for me so I can be in compliance. Thanks.

[Napoléon]

I believe these matters should be taken care of in private message, that's what the more courteous Mods seem to do. Since I have been warned for not using the hide tags and now warned for using the hide tags please define a "short" post for me so I can be in compliance. Thanks.

Here's a pro tip Statler.

Stop posting

[Faith No More]

He did more than just notice the human condition though; he knew things about people that he should have never been able to know. He knew their darkest secrets at the moment of first meeting them. I don't believe Jesus is worshipped as merely a great teacher though, but rather as the son of God and God in person.

As far as that goes, we don't that he actually did any of that. We only have anecdotal evidence from the bible which is insufficient evidence for such claims. And Jesus is believed to be the son of God because of his teachings.

Are there other religions that describe human nature the way scripture does? I am not aware of any actually, if you know of any fill me in.

Well, scripture only really deals with one aspect of human nature which is our propensity for evil deeds. Buddhism deals with other aspects such as emotional control, fear of death, and happiness. It teaches practical real world applications for dealing with these conditions instead of otherworldly answers. To me, Buddhism is more precise in its definition of human nature and what to do about it.