Why science and religion are not compatible

[citizenzen]

Ah, so saving billions is only a good thing if you don't have a personal stake in it.

He might be motivated by the purest, most selfless intentions. But since I don't know that, I'm not going to judge his mind (in a Buddhist sense) based on the little that I know about him.

 

[Resume]

He might be motivated by the purest, most selfless intentions. But since I don't know that, I'm not going to judge his mind (in a Buddhist sense) based on the little that I know about him.

Who are you to judge his mind in any sense?

 

[citizenzen]

Who are you to judge his mind in any sense?

We all make judgements based on the evidence that we have at the time.

Would you deny me the right to do so?

 

[Resume]

We all make judgements based on the evidence that we have at the time.

Would you deny me the right to do so?

To judge what in this instance? His motivations? Who gives a ******

 

[citizenzen]

To judge what in this instance? His motivations? Who gives a ******

If your basis for judging is whether he is doing a good thing and helping people, then it's pretty easy to say yes, he is doing that.

If you're trying to judge how those actions might stack up in the sense of Buddhism's good works, then it's nearly impossible to say, because then it really matters what that persons innermost state of mind is, and I'm not privy to that information.

I'm a bit confused why you would first ask me to compare his acts to Buddhism's good works and then claim I can't judge the situation. It seems a little schizophrenic.

Oh. There I go judging things again.

 

[Resume]

I'm a bit confused why you would first ask me to compare his acts to Buddhism's good works and then claim I can't judge the situation. It seems a little schizophrenic.

Oh. There I go judging things again.

I didn't ask you to compare anything. I was pointing out the difference between thinking about doing things and actually accomplishing them. I don't really care about some buddhist bullet points any more than I care about the motivations of the guy next to me at the PADS kitchen. If he thinks he's doing good christian works, fine, if he does it because it makes him feel good (as I do) that's cool too. I don't see the need to drag extemporaneous crap into this.

No need for extraneous crap either.

 

[citizenzen]

I didn't ask you to compare anything.

So when you said ...

This enlightenment of which you speak, these good works . . . do you have an example say, on the scale of someone like Norman Borlaug?

you didn't expect me to say anything about that at all ... not to try to put it in context to what I had said about the Buddhist Eight-fold path (good works)?

I apologize.

I didn't realize that it was supposed to go without comment.

 

[westprog]

I just avoid the issue entirely. I take theists at their word. The Roman Catholic Church requires its members to believe that the bread and wine during the Eucharist become the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is a testable claim,

Some of what is alleged in this thread is based on a misunderstanding of science. This one is based on a misunderstanding of religion. Every Catholic knows that the substance of the bread would not reveal any change when scientifically analysed.

and it does not stand up to scientific analysis. Southern Baptists (some, anyway) state that they believe illness is caused by demons and can be cured through praying. This is a testable claim, and does not stand up to scientific analysis. Each claim made by religion must be analyzed individually, just as any other claim is analyzed, and the person making the claim gets to say what the claim is--which means neither an atheist, nor a Buddhist, gets to say what the claim is unless we're making it.

 

[Dinwar]

He might be motivated by the purest, most selfless intentions.

I'm an Objectivist. He made life possible for billions. He's a good person. And any religion or philosophy that says otherwise, particularly on the basis of whether or not he was doing so "selflessly", is revealing its own corruption.

 

[westprog]

Sorry, not sure if he'll bother to correct you, but it's westprog.

I really don't see that characterising someone who is arguing in favour of atheism as an atheist is an ad hominem argument.

 

[Resume]

So when you said ...




you didn't expect me to say anything about that at all ... not to try to put it in context to what I had said about the Buddhist Eight-fold path (good works)?

I apologize.

I didn't realize that it was supposed to go without comment.

Well, do you have an example?

Not bullet points.

 

[Dinwar]

This one is based on a misunderstanding of religion. Every Catholic knows that the substance of the bread would not reveal any change when scientifically analysed.

No. The official stance of the Roman Catholic Church is that the bread and wine are tranformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. You are required to believe that if you are going to participate in a Roman Catholic celebration of the Eucharist. Please read the link to RCC catechism I provided. AT LEAST some Catholics necessarily believe that the bread and wine actually transform (there's that whole Accidents vs. Substance debate I referenced earlier that you've failed to consider, by the way).

If there is any misunderstanding of this religion, it is on your part, not mine.

 

[Dinwar]

I really don't see that characterising someone who is arguing in favour of atheism as an atheist is an ad hominem argument.

You're saying "You're wrong because you're an atheist", not "You're wrong AND you're an atheist". The latter is just a label. The first is an ad hominem argument. Clear enough?

 

[Resume]

Some of what is alleged in this thread is based on a misunderstanding of science. This one is based on a misunderstanding of religion. Every Catholic knows that the substance of the bread would not reveal any change when scientifically analysed.

What do you think a catholic is asked to believe, taught at one point or another?

 

[westprog]

I TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD.

I let them decide what they believe, and I merely ask for proof of anything that could potentially have proof. If they choose to believe that the Eucharist is symbolic, I have nothing to say on that count. If they choose to believe that illness can be cured via praying really hard (some Southern Baptists I've known do believe this), they're talking science and should provide proof (or at least point to someone who can).

And if they don't have any proof, they're contradicting known science, in the realm that science can discuss--and therefore they are in conflict with science. Which was my original point, before we got off on the (still on-going) tangent about whether an atheist can know what a theist believes or not (which has now become "Can we trust what theists say they believe?").

Seriously, have you read ANYTHING I've posted other than what you quoted? I've explained this before.

This is the problem, right away. The Catholic belief in the presence of God in the form of bread is something you might consider an absurdity. However, to claim that it's testable by science is simply wrong, and just shows misunderstanding of the doctrine. There is no scientific test for the presence of God.

The example of the Southern Baptists is a valid conflict with science. Note how it's the same group of evangelical fundamentalists who keep cropping up here.

 

[Dinwar]

What do you think a catholic is asked to believe, taught at one point or another?

For eight years straight. By nuns. I was an alter boy. I didn't become an atheist because I misunderstood Catholicism--I became one because I DO understand it.

 

[Dinwar]

The example of the Southern Baptists is a valid conflict with science. Note how it's the same group of evangelical fundamentalists who keep cropping up here.

Ah yes, it's those OTHER theists who always make the testable claims! YOUR God, the TRUE God, has never done anything that can in any way be tested, verified, or systematically analyzed.

Tell me, how do you know your God exists if you don't have any evidence for it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You skipped the second part ...

Please show me the authority who enforces this requirement. Please show me the edict that this authority wields to demand such strict submission.....

Try the dictionary. Can I call myself an apple and that makes me an apple, or do you suppose I might need to actually be an apple?

 

[citizenzen]

Well, do you have an example?

An example of Buddhist good works on the scale of yours?

[shakes head]

You have no idea of what I'm talking about ... do you?

I'm talking about purifying ones thoughts and actions, removing the ego, selfishness and hatred from their behavior and the negative influences those have on others.

And you just want to know whose THING is BIGGER?

I'm going to relate to you a story. I know you won't get it. But I'll throw this pebble down the well ... just in case it makes a splash ...

When Bankei was preaching at Ryumon temple, a Shinshu priest, who believed in salvation through the repitition of the name of the Buddha of Love, was jealous of his large audience and wanted to debate with him.

Bankei was in the midst of a talk when the priest appeared, but the fellow made such a disturbance that bankei stopped his discourse and asked about the noise.

"The founder of our sect," boasted the priest, "had such miraculous powers that he held a brush in his hand on one bank of the river, his attendant held up a paper on the other bank, and the teacher wrote the holy name of Amida through the air. Can you do such a wonderful thing?"

Bankei replied lightly: "Perhaps your fox can perform that trick, but that is not the manner of Zen. My miracle is that when I feel hungry I eat, and when I feel thirsty I drink."​

Dude. That is so totally Zen.

 

[Resume]

For eight years straight. By nuns. I was an alter boy. I didn't become an atheist because I misunderstood Catholicism--I became one because I DO understand it.

I was considering priesthood. I hate it when someone tells me what the catechism was, regardless if the rcc is now trying to back off on some of their more ridiculous crap.